XI Ma v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Qiao Xi Ma (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule “A”
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bochner PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03910, E.D.N.Y., 07/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that structure business activities to target and sell products to consumers in New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of selfie stick tripods infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a device.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics field and concerns the intellectual property protecting the specific aesthetic design of an article of manufacture, not its utilitarian function.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has implemented an "anti-infringement program" to identify infringing online listings, but mentions no prior litigation, inter partes reviews, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-04-03	U.S. Patent No. D1,019,743 S Priority Date
2024-03-26	U.S. Patent No. D1,019,743 S Issued
2025-07-14	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,019,743 S - "Selfie Stick Tripod"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,019,743 S, "Selfie Stick Tripod", issued March 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the manner of utility patents. Rather, they address the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a selfie stick tripod, not its mechanical operation. The claimed ornamental design, shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of the overall configuration of a three-legged base that folds around a central column and a top mounting structure ("D743 Patent", FIG. 1, FIG. 27). A key distinguishing visual feature is an oblong recess with a circular element, located on the upper surface of one of the tripod legs ("D743 Patent", FIG. 11). The patent explicitly disclaims, through the use of dashed lines, certain unclaimed portions of the article, such as the internal telescoping pole sections ("D743 Patent", DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "success of the Plaintiff's Products" embodying the patented design has resulted in significant infringement, suggesting the design possesses commercial value and consumer recognition (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a selfie stick tripod, as shown and described."
• In a design patent, the "elements" of the claim are the visual features of the design as depicted in the drawings. The essential ornamental features of the "D743 Patent" design include:
  • The overall aesthetic appearance of the article in its tripod configuration.
  • The specific shape and arrangement of the three legs as they connect to a central hub.
  • The presence and particular shape of an oblong recess on one of the tripod legs.
  • The visual relationship between the legs, the central column, and the top mount.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Unauthorized Products," identified as selfie stick tripods sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶¶3, 7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon and Walmart (Compl. ¶11). These stores allegedly target U.S. consumers and sell products that are "counterfeit" and designed to be confused with Plaintiff's genuine products (Compl. ¶¶17, 28). The core of the allegation is that these products are sold by a network of anonymous, difficult-to-trace online sellers (Compl. ¶¶10, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 6, but this exhibit was not provided for analysis. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendants directly infringe the "D743 Patent" by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the Unauthorized Products in the United States (Compl. ¶¶24, 27). The legal standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test. The complaint alleges that the accused products meet this test because "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the D743 Patent and each product being sold by Defendants are substantially the same" (Compl. ¶29). It is further alleged that this similarity would cause an ordinary observer and purchaser to be confused (Compl. ¶28). The complaint also makes a conclusory allegation of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The dispute will likely focus on whether the overall visual impression created by the accused products is "substantially the same" as the claimed design, or if differences are significant enough to avoid infringement.
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on comparing specific ornamental features. A key question will be whether the accused products replicate the distinctive oblong recess on the tripod leg as shown in the "D743 Patent", and if so, how closely. The court will need to determine if any variations in this or other features are trivial or substantially alter the overall visual appearance.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction involves interpreting the scope of the visual design shown in the drawings, rather than defining textual terms.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a selfie stick tripod, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The construction of this "claim" is the pivotal issue, as it defines the scope of the protected design against which the accused products will be compared. Practitioners may focus on this analysis because the outcome of the "ordinary observer" test—and thus the finding of infringement—depends entirely on the court's interpretation of the overall visual impression conveyed by the patent's drawings.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope might argue that the claim covers the overall visual concept of a three-legged, foldable tripod with a recess on one leg, and that minor differences in proportion, curvature, or surface finish do not alter the "substantially similar" overall impression perceived by an ordinary observer.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope would argue that the claim is limited to the specific visual appearance shown in the solid lines of the drawings, including the exact proportions and contours of the legs, the central hub, and the oblong recess ("D743 Patent", FIG. 1, 11). The patentee's explicit decision to disclaim certain elements by rendering them in dashed lines reinforces that the claim's scope is precisely defined by what is shown in solid lines ("D743 Patent", DESCRIPTION).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants are "working in active concert" to infringe (Compl. ¶24) and prays for relief from those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual support centers on allegations that Defendants operate as a coordinated network, sharing tactics and store templates to sell infringing goods while concealing their identities (Compl. ¶¶21-23).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the grounds that Defendants' conduct "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶31). This claim appears to be based on the allegations of a sophisticated, multi-storefront operation designed to evade intellectual property rights enforcement and conceal the operators' true identities (Compl. ¶¶10, 20).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused selfie stick tripods substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the 'D743 patent? The resolution will require a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the patent's drawings, focusing on the claimed solid-line features as a whole.
2. A significant procedural issue will be one of enforcement and liability: Can the Plaintiff successfully pierce the alleged anonymity of the "Schedule A" e-commerce operators to identify the responsible parties, establish liability, and enforce a potential judgment, given the complaint’s allegations of a diffuse and intentionally concealed network of sellers?