Qiu v. Riding'Times Direct

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guichun Qiu
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China and other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-07596, E.D.N.Y., 10/31/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous foreign e-commerce sellers are selling electric bicycles on platforms like Amazon.com that infringe Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The case concerns the ornamental design of electric bicycles, a popular and growing consumer product category characterized by diverse aesthetic styles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The case structure, targeting numerous foreign sellers listed on a schedule, is characteristic of actions aimed at combating online counterfeiting operations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,016,678 - Electric Bicycle, issued March 5, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'678 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Instead, it seeks to protect a unique, non-functional, ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture, distinguishing it aesthetically from other products in the marketplace (D’678 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of an electric bicycle. Key ornamental features depicted in the patent's figures include a retro, moped-style frame, a prominent single round headlight, an elongated, flat-topped seat, thick "fat" tires, and a distinct rectangular battery pack mounted on the frame's down tube (D'678 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claim protects the overall visual impression created by the combination of these elements as illustrated in the drawings (D’678 Patent, Claim; Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "distinctive," "unique," and "instantly recognizable" to consumers, thereby creating valuable goodwill associated with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶8, 10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle, as shown and described" (D’678 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the bicycle illustrated in the solid lines of Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are electric bicycles ("Infringing Products") sold by the Defendants listed in Schedule A of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶4, 12; Schedule A, p. 18-19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants sell "counterfeit products" and "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's patented product through interactive e-commerce stores on Amazon.com, targeting consumers in the United States and the Eastern District of New York (Compl. ¶¶2, 12, 24). Exhibit C of the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design with an accused product from each defendant (Compl. Ex. C, p. 46-50). The complaint asserts these products are designed to appear as genuine Plaintiff's products to deceive consumers (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

For design patents, 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 is the patented design. The complaint's allegations are presented visually in Exhibit C. The table below summarizes the core visual similarities based on the complaint's allegations.

D'678 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central legal question will be the application of the ordinary observer test. The court must determine if the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the claimed design.
  • Technical Questions: Since the complaint alleges "slavish copying," the primary factual question will be whether any differences between the patented design and the accused products are significant enough to be noticed by an ordinary observer and prevent confusion. The court's analysis will rely heavily on the visual evidence presented in Exhibit C and any evidence introduced by the defendants.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the visual design itself as shown in the drawings, and traditional claim term construction is typically not a central issue. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance rather than the definition of textual elements.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for an electric bicycle"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the scope of the patented design as a whole. The court's interpretation will not involve defining words but rather assessing the visual boundaries of the design depicted in Figures 1-7 to compare it against the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the design's scope should cover minor variations, focusing on the overall visual impression and asserting that the design's novelty lies in the general combination of its moped-like features, which the accused products capture.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the scope is limited to the exact proportions and details shown in the patent's figures (D'678 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Any deviation in the accused product, however small, could be argued to create a different overall visual impression for the ordinary observer.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement and references "inducing, or enabling others to sell" in the prayer for relief (Compl. ¶28; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations primarily focus on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, and selling the accused products, suggesting direct infringement is the primary theory of the case.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowingly and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶22). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that the accused products are "counterfeit" and the result of "slavish copying," which, if proven, could support an inference of deliberate copying (Compl. ¶¶2, 10).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Under the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the various accused electric bicycles, as depicted in the complaint's Exhibit C, substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the D'678 patent?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of deception: Assuming some minor differences exist between the patented design and the accused products, are those differences sufficient to distinguish the products in the eyes of an ordinary consumer, or would the resemblance still deceive a purchaser into believing they were buying the patented product?
3. Given the nature of the defendants as numerous foreign-based e-commerce sellers, a central practical question will be one of enforcement: If infringement is found, how effectively can the Plaintiff obtain and enforce injunctive and monetary relief against these entities operating largely outside the direct jurisdiction of U.S. courts?