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 being located in Princeton, New Jersey, and its alleged targeting of sales to consumers within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pet playpen product infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a pet playpen.
- Technical Context: The dispute involves pet enclosure products, a consumer goods category where ornamental design can serve as a key market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2023. No other prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-10-11 | ’D555 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-11-10 | ’D555 Patent Assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2024-04-01 | Plaintiff began marketing its own products (stated as "at least as early as April 2024") |
| 2025-07-22 | ’D555 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,085,555, “Pet Playpen,” issued July 22, 2025 (the "'D555 Patent").
The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the patent addresses the market need for a pet playpen with a "unique design" that is aesthetically pleasing to consumers (Compl. ¶9).
- The Patented Solution: The ’D555 Patent protects the specific ornamental design of a pet playpen. Key visual features shown in the patent's figures include a rectangular enclosure formed from panels with large transparent windows, a framed structure with beveled edges, a front-facing door with a distinct oblong handle cutout, and two sets of slide-bolt latches arranged vertically on the door frame (’D555 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The complaint reproduces a representative figure from the patent showing a perspective view of the design (Compl. p. 2).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the value of the design lies in its unique aesthetic, which is "loved by consumers" (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a pet playpen, as shown and described" (’D555 Patent, Claim). Infringement analysis for a design patent is based on a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the accused product to the design claimed in the patent's figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification: The complaint identifies "pet playpen products" sold by Defendant as the infringing instrumentalities (Compl. ¶10). An image of an example accused product is provided in the complaint (Compl. p. 3).
Functionality and Market Context:
- The accused instrumentality is a pet enclosure designed for containing small animals (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges Defendant offers for sale, sells, and/or imports these products into the United States via e-commerce channels, including its own store and Amazon (Compl. ¶2, ¶10). The image of the accused product shows a modular, transparent-walled pet playpen (Compl. p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s product infringes the single claim of the ’D555 Patent (Compl. ¶17). As this is a design patent, the infringement analysis centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design to be substantially the same as the patented design. The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart but bases its allegation on the visual similarity between the accused product and the patented design. The below table summarizes the comparison of key ornamental features based on the images provided.
’D555 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature (from ’D555 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression of a rectangular, modular enclosure with large, transparent panels and a distinct frame. | The accused product is a rectangular, modular enclosure with large, transparent panels and a visible frame, creating a similar overall visual impression. | ¶10; p. 3 | FIG. 1 |
| A single, front-facing door with a horizontal, oblong handle cutout at the top and two vertically-aligned latch mechanisms. | The accused product's door, as depicted in the complaint, features a horizontal, oblong handle cutout and two vertically-aligned latch mechanisms in substantially the same positions. | ¶10; p. 3 | FIG. 2 |
| The specific arrangement and configuration of the frame elements surrounding each panel, including corner joints and beveled edges. | The accused product appears to use a similar frame configuration with comparable panel joints and edge treatments. | ¶10; p. 3 | FIG. 1, 4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central legal question will be 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 outcome will depend on a comparison of the overall visual effect of the two designs, not a simple tallying of similarities and differences.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused product and the specific renderings in the ’D555 Patent's figures. The court will need to assess whether any minor differences between the products are sufficient to create a distinct visual impression or if they are trivial in the context of the overall design.
V. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶16) but does not plead specific facts to support either induced infringement (e.g., intent and affirmative steps to encourage infringement) or contributory infringement (e.g., sale of a non-staple component).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶10, ¶11, ¶15). It does not, however, allege any specific facts that would establish pre-suit knowledge of the ’D555 Patent, such as a prior notice letter.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the ordinary observer test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's pet playpen substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’D555 Patent, such that a purchaser would be deceived?
A secondary issue will be one of intent and damages: Should infringement be found, what evidence will support the Plaintiff’s claim of willfulness, which could lead to enhanced damages, given the absence of any pleaded facts showing Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent?