Wu v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Juanren Wu (individual inventor)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (alleged to be foreign entities)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ford Banister LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00358, N.D. Ill., 01/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through fully interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce stores sell unauthorized diamond painting pen tips that infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a tip.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the arts and crafts sector, specifically for "diamond painting," a hobby that involves applying small resin rhinestones to an adhesive canvas using a specialized pen tool.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. A central feature of the complaint is the allegation that the defendants are a group of anonymous, foreign-based online sellers who use aliases to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-10-06	’230 Patent Priority Date
2024-10-29	’230 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-13	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,230 S - *"Painting Pen Tip"*

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,230 S, titled "Painting Pen Tip", issued October 29, 2024 (’230 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’230 Patent does not address a technical problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture—in this case, a pen tip. (Compl. ¶6; ’230 Patent, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of the pen tip. The design features a body that tapers from a wider, flared section down to a narrow, cylindrical tip opening. The base of the tip includes several distinct circumferential rings, presumably for attachment to a pen body. (’230 Patent, FIGS. 2-9). The broken lines in the patent drawings, which depict a pen body and securing attachments, indicate that those elements are for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design. (’230 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is "distinctive," "broadly recognized by consumers," and has become associated with the "high quality and innovation" of Plaintiff's products in the diamond painting community. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a painting pen tip as shown and described." (’230 Patent, CLAIM; Compl. ¶28).
• Unlike a utility patent, the claim is not composed of text-based elements but rather the collective visual appearance of the design as depicted in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Unauthorized Products," identified as diamond paint pens that allegedly embody the patented design. (Compl. ¶¶4, 9). These products are allegedly sold by Defendant through various online storefronts operating under "Seller Aliases." (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are tools used for diamond painting. (Compl. ¶5). The complaint alleges they are sold through "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" on platforms such as Amazon, targeting consumers throughout the United States. (Compl. ¶¶3, 16). A central allegation is that the Defendant is a collection of unidentified e-commerce operators, likely residing in China or another foreign jurisdiction, who use concealment tactics to avoid liability. (Compl. ¶¶11, 15). The complaint provides a table containing figures from the ’230 patent to show the design claimed. (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or side-by-side visual comparison between the patented design and an accused product. It asserts that Defendant is "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States...Unauthorized Products that infringe directly and/or through the doctrine of equivalents the ornamental design claimed in the Paint Pen Patent." (Compl. ¶28). The complaint includes a table showing multiple views of the claimed design from the ’230 Patent. (Compl. p. 4). This visual evidence from the complaint illustrates the ornamental features of the asserted patent design, including its flared body and ringed base.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary legal question for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test. The dispute will therefore raise the question of whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing one of the accused products believing it to be the patented design. The outcome will depend on whether the accused products are "substantially the same" in their overall visual appearance as the design shown in the ’230 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the identification of the specific accused products sold by the anonymous defendants. The complaint does not include images of the accused products themselves, meaning a central evidentiary issue will be establishing the precise ornamental appearance of the "Unauthorized Products" and comparing them to the drawings in the ’230 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As a design patent, the single claim consists of the drawings themselves ("The ornamental design...as shown and described"). Claim construction for a design patent typically involves a verbal description of the patented design's overall visual impression rather than the construction of specific text-based terms. Practitioners may focus on the scope of the overall design.

• The Term: The overall ornamental design as depicted in Figures 2-9.
• Context and Importance: The scope of protection is defined by the patented design's overall appearance. A verbal description by the court will guide the "ordinary observer" analysis by highlighting the key visual features that define the design.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties seeking a broader scope may argue that the core of the design is the general combination of a flared, conical body with a ringed attachment base, and that minor variations in proportion or curvature do not alter this overall visual impression.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Parties seeking a narrower scope may argue that the design is limited to the specific proportions, the precise curvature of the flare, the exact number and spacing of the rings at the base, and the proportional relationships between these features as explicitly shown in the patent's orthogonal views. (’230 Patent, FIGS. 4-9).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by the named defendants. (Compl. ¶28; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has acted "knowingly and willfully." (Compl. ¶¶13, 25). It seeks a formal judgment of willful infringement and a corresponding trebling of damages. (Prayer for Relief ¶¶2, 4). The complaint does not specify facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent, basing the allegation on general knowledge.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Procedural Efficacy: A primary issue will be procedural: can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous online sellers, effect service, and obtain the necessary discovery to prove infringement and damages, given the allegations that these entities operate from foreign jurisdictions and actively conceal their identities?
• Substantive Infringement: The central substantive question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. Once specific accused products are identified, the key question will be whether their overall ornamental appearance is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’230 Patent, such that an ordinary purchaser would be deceived.
• Damages and Intent: A critical question for damages will be whether Plaintiff can establish that the disparate, anonymous online sellers possessed the requisite knowledge of their infringement to support a finding of willfulness, which could entitle the Plaintiff to enhanced damages or an award of the infringers' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.