DCT
3:25-cv-16264
Wuxi Gougelila Electronic Commerce Co Ltd v. North Star Home LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wuxi Gougelila Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: North Star Home, LLC A/K/A NorthStarHome (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Liu, Esq.
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-16264, D.N.J., 10/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey, and its alleged e-commerce activities targeting consumers within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pet playpen products infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a pet playpen.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer pet products market, where the aesthetic and ornamental design of an item like a playpen can be a key driver of consumer choice.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2023, establishing its standing to bring this infringement action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-10-11 | ’D555 Patent Foreign Priority Date |
| 2023-11-10 | ’D555 Patent assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2024-04-01 | Plaintiff begins selling its patented products (on or about this date) |
| 2025-07-22 | ’D555 Patent Issues |
| 2025-10-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,085,555, "Pet Playpen," issued July 22, 2025 (’D555 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’D555 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶4; ’D555 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a pet playpen. The claimed design, illustrated in seven figures, consists of a rectangular enclosure constructed from multiple panels ('D555 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). Key ornamental features include the use of large, transparent rectangular windows set within solid frames for each panel, a front-facing door panel with two slide-bolt latches and a cutout handle at the top, and distinct corner connectors ('D555 Patent, FIG. 1, 2). The design as a whole creates a specific aesthetic impression of a modern, transparent pet containment system.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the "unique design claimed in the 'D555 Patent" is a reason the product is "loved by consumers" (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a pet playpen, as shown and described" (’D555 Patent, Claim). This claim incorporates all seven figures of the patent by reference.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "pet playpen products" sold by Defendant North Star Home, LLC (Compl. ¶10). An image of an exemplary accused product is provided in the complaint. (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a pet enclosure, presumably for small animals, that is sold by Defendant via e-commerce channels (Compl. ¶2, ¶10). The complaint includes an image of the accused product, which appears to be a multi-panel, transparent playpen with a door. (Compl. ¶10).
- The complaint alleges Defendant markets and sells these products to consumers in the United States, including New Jersey (Compl. ¶2, ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The analysis turns on the similarity of the overall ornamental appearance. The complaint provides a representative figure from the patent and an image of the accused product. (Compl. ¶7, ¶10).
’D555 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature (from ’D555 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A rectangular enclosure comprised of multiple vertical panels with large, inset transparent windows. | The accused product is a rectangular enclosure made of vertical panels with large, inset transparent windows. | ¶10 | ’D555 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| A dedicated door panel with a transparent window, an upper cutout handle, and two slide-bolt style latches positioned vertically along one side. | The accused product’s door panel features a transparent window, a similar upper cutout handle, and two slide-bolt style latches. | ¶10 | ’D555 Patent, FIG. 2 |
| Panels connected at the corners by distinct vertical connector pieces, creating a segmented frame appearance. | The accused product appears to use similar vertical corner connectors that create a segmented frame. | ¶10 | ’D555 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| The overall visual impression of a modern, modular, and largely transparent rectangular pet enclosure. | The accused product presents an overall visual impression that, the complaint alleges, is substantially the same as the patented design. | ¶10, ¶17 | ’D555 Patent, FIGS. 1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product is "substantially the same" as that shown in the ’D555 Patent. The analysis will focus on the designs as a whole, not on a simple checklist of features.
- Technical Questions: While not a technical dispute, the factual question for the jury will be a visual one. The analysis may turn on subtle differences in proportion, the specific design of the latches, or the texturing of the frame elements, and whether those differences are sufficient to distinguish the two designs in the mind of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, the single claim is defined by the patent's drawings rather than by textual limitations. Therefore, claim construction in the traditional sense is not a central issue. The legal analysis is guided by the "ordinary observer" test, which involves a direct visual comparison of the accused product to the patent's figures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶16), but does not plead specific facts to support claims of either induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendant instructed third parties on how to assemble or use an infringing product.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was knowing and willful (Compl. ¶10, ¶11, ¶15). It does not, however, allege any facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the ’D555 Patent, such as receipt of a notice letter.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A Question of Visual Identity: Is the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's pet playpen substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’D555 Patent? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison and a determination of whether an ordinary observer, familiar with other pet playpen designs, would confuse the two.
- An Evidentiary Question on Damages: Assuming infringement is found, what is the appropriate measure of damages? Plaintiff has requested Defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy specific to design patent infringement, which will require a detailed accounting of the profits attributable to the infringing sales.