DCT
1:25-cv-00058
Ningbo Langyan Agel E Commerce Ltd v. Corps Ltd Liability Companies Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ningbo Langyan Agel E-commerce Ltd. (Zhejiang, China)
- Defendant: The Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Evia Law PLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00058, S.D.N.Y., 01/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendants do not reside in any judicial district in the United States, and therefore may be sued in any district. The complaint further alleges that Defendants target consumers in the United States, including New York, through online stores that offer to sell and ship infringing products to the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of certain stands/tables infringe the ornamental designs claimed in two U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to the ornamental design of a wheeled utility cart with foldable side shelves, intended for use as a stand for a heat transfer printer.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is an Amended Complaint, filed after the Court granted leave to amend on January 10, 2025. The case structure targets numerous, allegedly unidentified online sellers, asserting that their activities are logically related and they may be acting in concert.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-11-17 | Priority Date for '228 Patent and '622 Patent Applications |
| 2024-08-06 | U.S. Patent No. D1,038,228 Issues |
| 2024-09-17 | U.S. Patent No. D1,042,622 Issues |
| 2025-01-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,038,228 - "STAND FOR HEAT TRANSFER PRINTER," issued August 6, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem but is directed to the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, specifically a "stand for heat transfer printer" (’228 Patent, p.3, (54)).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a multi-tiered, wheeled utility cart (’228 Patent, FIG. 1). The design features a rectangular frame, two lower shelves, a solid top surface, a U-shaped handle at the top, and two hinged, fold-out side shelves supported by folding brackets (’228 Patent, FIGS. 1, 2, 4). All features shown in solid lines in the patent drawings are part of the claimed ornamental design (’228 Patent, p.3, DESCRIPTION). The complaint includes a reproduction of Figure 1 from this patent to illustrate the overall design (Compl. p. 7).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a mobile, compact workstation with expandable surface area, suitable for crafters or businesses using heat press equipment.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a stand for heat transfer printer, as shown and described" (’228 Patent, p.3, CLAIM).
- The claim covers the overall visual appearance of the article as depicted in Figures 1-7.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,042,622 - "STAND FOR HEAT TRANSFER PRINTER," issued September 17, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent patent, the ’622 Patent is directed to the ornamental appearance of a "stand for heat transfer printer" (’622 Patent, p.3, (54)).
- The Patented Solution: The ’622 Patent claims an ornamental design for specific features of the same type of stand. Crucially, the patent uses broken lines to disclaim the majority of the stand's structure, including the main frame, shelves, and wheels (’622 Patent, p.3, DESCRIPTION). The claimed design (shown in solid lines) is therefore limited to the combination of the two fold-out side shelves, their underlying support brackets, and the top U-shaped handle rail (’622 Patent, FIG. 1). The complaint displays Figure 1 from this patent, which uses dashed lines to distinguish the unclaimed environment from the claimed design features (Compl. p. 7).
- Technical Importance: This patent protects a narrower, specific combination of ornamental features, which could potentially be applied to stands with different underlying structures.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a stand for heat transfer printer, as shown and described" (’622 Patent, p.3, CLAIM).
- The claim is defined by the solid-line portions of the drawings, which are limited to the side shelves, brackets, and top handle, explicitly excluding the elements shown in broken lines.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "stands/tables" offered for sale, sold, made, used, and/or imported by the Defendants listed in the unattached Schedule A (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not provide specific details, images, or descriptions of the accused products beyond the general categorization of "stands/tables" (Compl. ¶26). It alleges that Defendants are online sellers who operate stores on various platforms and that they sell "the same or nearly identical accused products" (Compl. ¶3, ¶10). The complaint further alleges that Defendants use identical or nearly identical photographs and marketing materials in their product listings (Compl. ¶12, ¶14, ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products are "at least substantially similar to Plaintiff's patented design to the eye of an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶9). As the complaint does not provide images or detailed descriptions of the accused products, the following tables summarize the Plaintiff's infringement theory at a high level.
D1,038,228 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single design claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design as a whole, as depicted in Figures 1-7 | The complaint alleges that the "stands/tables" sold by Defendants embody a design that is "substantially similar to Plaintiff's patented design." | ¶9, ¶26, ¶29 | FIGS. 1-7 |
D1,042,622 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single design claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for the side shelves, support brackets, and top handle, as depicted in solid lines in Figures 1-16 | The complaint alleges that the "stands/tables" sold by Defendants embody a design that is "substantially similar to Plaintiff's patented design," which for this patent would be the specific combination of features shown in solid lines. | ¶9, ¶26, ¶35 | FIGS. 1-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central issue for both patents will be a factual comparison. Since no images of the accused products are provided, the primary question is whether the Defendants' products are, in fact, "substantially similar" in overall appearance to the claimed designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Scope Questions: A key legal and factual question is how the different scopes of the two patents will apply. An accused product might be found to infringe the broader design of the ’228 Patent but not the narrower design of the ’622 Patent (or vice versa, though less likely). The infringement analysis for the ’622 Patent must focus only on the visual appearance of the side shelves, brackets, and top handle, ignoring any similarities or differences in the stand's main frame, shelves, or wheels.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings as a whole, and disputes over the meaning of specific terms are rare. The primary issue of claim scope is defined by the solid and broken lines in the patent drawings, as described in Section II.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against "Aiding, abetting, inducing, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. Prayer ¶D(b)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages based on willfulness. It does request that the case be found "exceptional" for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive evidentiary question will be one of visual identity: Do the accused products, which are identified only in an unattached schedule, actually create an overall visual impression that is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '228 and '622 patents in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
- A central issue of claim scope will be the distinction between the two asserted patents: How will the infringement analysis differ between the '228 patent, which claims the entire stand's design, and the '622 patent, which, through its use of broken lines, claims only the specific ornamental design of the side-shelves, brackets, and top handle?
- A threshold procedural question will be the propriety of joinder: The complaint joins a large number of unidentified defendants based on allegations of a "systematic approach" and use of common product sources (Compl. ¶11). The court will need to determine if the facts alleged are sufficient to justify joining these disparate online sellers in a single action.