DCT
1:25-cv-06898
Jingang Yang v. Britannica Home Fashions Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jingang Yang (Sichuan, China)
- Defendant: Britannica Home Fashions, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06898, S.D.N.Y., 08/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the Defendant resides in the district, maintains its principal place of business there, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s arm rest cushion products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for an "Arm Rest Cushion."
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental appearance of consumer products in the ergonomic support and personal comfort goods market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events relevant to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-12-07 | D'519 Patent Priority Date (via CN 202230818152.8) |
| 2023-03-21 | D'519 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2024-10-22 | D'519 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-08-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,047,519 - "ARM REST CUSHION"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,047,519, "ARM REST CUSHION", issued October 22, 2024 (the '519 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '519 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ('519 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for an arm rest cushion depicted in its figures ('519 Patent, Claim). The design features a generally U-shaped body with two forward-projecting arms connected by a curved rear portion, as shown in the top plan view of Figure 7 ('519 Patent, Fig. 7). The side profile is characterized by a low, downward-tapering silhouette, and all edges and corners are soft and rounded, creating a minimalist aesthetic ('519 Patent, Fig. 3, Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct visual appearance within the market for personal ergonomic support products (Compl. ¶2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for an arm rest cushion as shown." ('519 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual characteristics illustrated in the patent's drawings, which include:
- A generally U-shaped overall footprint.
- Two forward-projecting arms joined by a continuous curved rear section.
- A side profile that tapers from a higher rear portion to a lower front portion.
- Soft, rounded corners and edges throughout the design.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products as "arm rest cushion products" manufactured and sold by Defendant Britannica Home Fashions, Inc. (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are sold at major retailers, including Costco, Target, Amazon, and Nordstrom (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). A photograph of product packaging from a Costco store identifies the product as a "Lap Desk" (Compl. p. 3).
- The complaint provides photographs depicting the accused product as a U-shaped cushion intended for personal support (Compl. pp. 4-5).
- The complaint alleges the accused products are sold through national retail and online marketplaces, suggesting broad commercial distribution (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substantially similar" to the patented design and "create the same overall visual impression" under the ordinary observer test (Compl. ¶12, ¶17). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison table to support this allegation (Compl. p. 4).
D'519 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from D'519 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A generally U-shaped plan view with two forward-projecting arms. | The accused product exhibits a substantially similar U-shaped footprint and overall proportions. | ¶18; p. 4 | Fig. 7 |
| A low-profile side silhouette. | The complaint alleges a "comparable low-profile side silhouette" in the accused product. | ¶18; p. 5 | Fig. 3; Fig. 5 |
| Similar corner/edge treatment. | The accused product is alleged to have similar rounded corners and soft edge transitions. | ¶18; p. 4 | Fig. 1; Fig. 2 |
| Arrangement of visible surface lines/panel breaks. | The complaint alleges a "matching arrangement of visible surface lines/panel breaks." | ¶18; p. 4 | Fig. 1 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question for design patent infringement is 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 dispute may focus on whether any perceived differences in proportion, curvature, or surface texture are sufficient to distinguish the two designs in the mind of such an observer.
- Technical Questions: A potential point of contention may arise from the comparison between the idealized, solid-gray renderings in the '519 Patent figures and the physical, fabric-covered appearance of the accused product shown in the complaint's photographs (Compl. p. 4). The court will have to determine if these differences in material and finish alter the overall visual impression.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction for design patents does not focus on textual terms but rather on the overall visual impression of the design as shown in the patent figures. The scope of the '519 Patent's claim will be defined by the drawings as a whole, and it is not anticipated that the construction of specific terms will be a central issue.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant from "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, but the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support a claim of either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. p. 7).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement became willful "at least as of the time it had knowledge of the D’519 Patent and/or service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation appears to be predicated on post-suit conduct rather than pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. 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: When viewed in the context of the relevant prior art, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "Lap Desk" substantially the same as the design claimed in the '519 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived?
- A key evidentiary question will be the significance of differences: Do the subtle variations in curvature, proportion, or surface material between the patent's drawings and the accused physical product constitute minor differences that do not alter the overall visual impression, or are they significant enough to create a distinct design?