DCT
1:26-cv-00271
ICON Worldwide Pty Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations On Schedule A
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Icon Worldwide PTY Ltd (Australia)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China and other foreign/domestic jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|RM DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00271, N.D. Ill., 01/09/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is predicated on Defendants' alleged business activities targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive commercial internet stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online sellers are infringing its design patent by selling "knock-off" products that are identical to Plaintiff's patented "WALL MOUNT" design.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a consumer product, a wall mount, in the competitive home decor and organization market where aesthetic appearance is a key differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a large group of unidentified defendants, whose identities are provided in a sealed "Schedule A." This procedural posture is common in anti-counterfeiting litigation against disparate online sellers, aiming to overcome tactics used by infringers to conceal their identities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-10-19 | ’860 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-04-19 | ’860 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2023-04-19 | Plaintiff alleges it began digitally marking its stores |
| 2024-10-29 | ’860 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-10-29 | Plaintiff alleges it began digitally marking its stores |
| 2026-01-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,048,860 - *"WALL MOUNT"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,048,860, "WALL MOUNT," issued October 29, 2024 (’860 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The implicit problem is the need for a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design for a wall mount to distinguish it from prior designs.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a wall mount shaped like a human hand. The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, features a gracefully posed hand with the palm facing upwards and fingers slightly curled, creating a visually distinctive holder (D'860 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The claim protects the overall visual impression created by these specific shapes and contours as applied to a wall mount (D'860 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: In the market for consumer goods like home decor, a unique aesthetic design can be a significant commercial asset, creating brand identity and consumer appeal (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a wall mount as shown and described" (D’860 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the solid-line drawings in Figures 1-8 of the patent. The broken lines shown in the figures illustrate portions of the article that do not form part of the claimed design (D’860 Patent, Description).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "knock-off products" that allegedly feature Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶1). Specific examples of these products are identified in a sealed "Exhibit B" not publicly available with the complaint (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are sold through "Defendants' Internet Stores" on various online marketplaces, including Amazon, TEMU, Walmart, and eBay (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges these products are "identical to Plaintiff's D'860 patented 'WALL MOUNT' product" and are marketed and sold by a network of infringers who operate under fictitious names to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶¶1, 8). The sellers are alleged to be primarily located in China and target consumers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶¶4, 11).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused "knock-off products" infringe the single claim of the ’860 Patent (Compl. ¶¶12-13; Count I, ¶2). Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint's core allegation is that the accused products create the same overall visual impression as the patented design.
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a wall mount as shown and described. | Defendants are alleged to offer for sale, sell, and/or import "knock-off products" that are "identical" to and embody the ornamental design claimed in the '860 Patent. | ¶1; Count I, ¶2 | Figs. 1-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central issue will be a direct visual comparison between the design claimed in the ’860 Patent and the accused products. The complaint’s allegation that the products are "identical" suggests Plaintiff anticipates this comparison will be straightforward (Compl. ¶1). The key question for the court will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Procedural Question: A significant practical hurdle will be obtaining the accused products for comparison and linking them to the specific, often anonymous, defendants listed in the sealed Schedule A.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than words. However, the identity of the article of manufacture can be relevant.
- The Term: "wall mount"
- Context and Importance: This term, from the patent's title and claim, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its interpretation frames the context for the ordinary observer test. Practitioners may focus on this term to ensure the infringement analysis properly compares the accused product to the patented design as applied to a wall mount, not as a disembodied abstract design.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently identifies the article as a "WALL MOUNT" in the title, claim, and description of figures (D’860 Patent, (54), Claim, Description). This suggests the patent is limited to the application of the design to this particular class of goods.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to products that infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Count I, ¶2; Prayer for Relief, ¶1.b). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts, such as knowledge and specific intent to induce, that would be necessary to support a standalone claim for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶¶5, 12, 13). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants operate online stores designed to appear legitimate while "knowingly marketing, selling, and/or distributing knock-off products identical to Plaintiff's" patented product (Compl. ¶1).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary challenge will be procedural and jurisdictional: can the Plaintiff successfully identify, serve, and secure enforceable judgments against a large and diffuse group of foreign-based online sellers who are alleged to be actively concealing their identities? The court's willingness to permit proceedings against a sealed list of "John Doe"-style defendants will be critical.
- The core substantive issue will be one of direct visual comparison: assuming the accused products are located and produced, does their ornamental design create a visual impression that is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '860 patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The complaint's characterization of the accused items as "identical knock-offs" frames this as a factual, rather than a legal, dispute.