Guo v. Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kundian Guo (China)
  • Defendant: Schedule A Defendants (alleged to be individuals, partnerships, and unincorporated associations residing in China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aptum Law
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01951, W.D. Pa., 12/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants target and conduct business with consumers in the Western District of Pennsylvania through interactive e-commerce stores, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators, identified as "Schedule A Defendants," infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a rotating rack.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer household goods, specifically rotating storage racks used for organizing bottles and other items.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured to combat what it terms a "swarm of attacks" from numerous anonymous, foreign-based online sellers who allegedly operate under fictitious aliases. This procedural posture, targeting a collective of unnamed defendants, is a central feature of the case.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-06-13	’592 Patent Priority Date
2024-10-22	U.S. Patent No. D1,047,592 Issued
2025-12-15	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,047,592 - Rotating rack

Patent Identification

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,047,592, titled "Rotating rack", issued October 22, 2024 (the "'’592 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional utility. The ’592 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ('’592 Patent, p. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The claimed design is for a two-tiered rotating rack characterized by its specific visual appearance. The key ornamental features include a solid circular base connected by several vertical posts to an upper ring of the same diameter ('’592 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The upper ring features a series of uniformly spaced circular cutouts arranged around its perimeter, with a solid circular area at the very center ('’592 Patent, FIG. 7). The overall visual impression is one of a clean, symmetrical, and minimalist cylindrical structure for holding circular items.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design achieved "great commercial success" and "quickly occupied a leading position in the field" due to its "innovative design, novel limitations, and high-quality user experience" (Compl. ¶¶10, 13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The ’592 Patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a rotating rack, as shown and described" ('’592 Patent, col. 1).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-8 of the patent, which depict the design from various perspectives ('’592 Patent, col. 1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "rotating racks" sold by the Defendants on various e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶1). No specific product names are provided, as the defendants are identified only as "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "virtually identical" to the product embodying the patented design (Compl. ¶16). The accused products are described as rotating racks that support multiple bottles in an upright position, comprising a circular base and an upper retaining ring that define bottle positions (Compl. ¶52). They are allegedly configured for 360-degree rotation to allow selective access to each bottle (Compl. ¶52). The complaint alleges these products are sold through sophisticated e-commerce storefronts on platforms like Amazon, targeting consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶11, 28, 44). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent 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 to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' products are "virtually identical" and "incorporate each of these structural and functional limitations in substantially the same way" (Compl. ¶¶16, 52).

'592 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claimed Ornamental Feature (from '’592 Patent)	Alleged Infringing Appearance (from Complaint)	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a rotating rack as shown and described.	Defendants sell rotating racks that are "virtually identical to the claimed Patent-in-Suit."	¶16	col. 1
A two-tiered structure with a circular base and an upper retaining ring.	The accused products comprise "a circular base and an upper retaining ring."	¶52	FIG. 1, 3
The upper ring defines positions for holding items.	The base and upper ring "together define individual bottle positions."	¶52	FIG. 7
A structure that rotates.	The structure is "configured to allow 360-degree rotation for selective access to each bottle."	¶52	Title
The overall ornamental assembly.	The accused products "incorporate each of these structural and functional limitations in substantially the same way, thereby meeting every element of the claimed rotating rack."	¶52	FIG. 1-8

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central question in a design patent case is the scope of the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The dispute will focus on whether the overall visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as that shown in the ’592 Patent drawings.
• Technical Questions: Since the exhibits showing the accused products are not attached to the complaint, a key factual question will be the degree of visual similarity between the Defendants' actual products and the patented design. The complaint's allegation of the products being "virtually identical" (Compl. ¶16) sets a high bar that will require evidentiary support.

V. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation that Defendants' products "directly and/or indirectly infringe" the patent-in-suit but does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶50).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported "actual or constructive knowledge of the Patent-in-Suit," the "significant popularity" of the Plaintiff's products, and the "anonymous nature of Defendants," which is framed as a tactic to evade liability (Compl. ¶55).

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

1. Evidentiary Proof of Similarity: A primary issue will be an evidentiary one: can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products sold by the numerous, anonymous "Schedule A Defendants" are, in fact, "virtually identical" to the ornamental design claimed in the ’592 Patent? The outcome will depend on a visual comparison under the "ordinary observer" test.
2. Procedural Efficacy: A crucial question is whether the court will permit this action to proceed against a class of unidentified "Schedule A Defendants." The case may test the legal strategies used to combat infringement by disparate, anonymous, and foreign-based online sellers, and the effectiveness of the broad injunctive relief sought against third-party e-commerce platforms.