DCT

2:25-cv-01975

Dongguan Tesimai Electronic Technology Co Ltd v. Schedule A

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01975, W.D. Pa., 12/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because a substantial part of the infringing activities—specifically, the offering for sale and selling of the accused products to consumers—occurred within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified online merchants are infringing its U.S. design patent for a "Toy Aircraft" by manufacturing, importing, and selling visually similar flying toys through various e-commerce platforms.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a popular consumer electronic product: a spherical, caged flying toy or "flying orb."
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an enforcement action against a large number of unidentified online sellers, designated as "Doe" defendants on a sealed Schedule A. This procedural posture is common in cases targeting diffuse online marketplaces and suggests a focus on obtaining broad injunctive relief and asset restraints against foreign entities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-04-03 D'522 Patent Priority Date
2020-07-28 U.S. Design Patent No. D891,522 Issued
2023-12-01 Plaintiff's Copyright Works Registered (approx.)
2025-12-18 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D891,522 - "TOY AIRCRAFT", issued July 28, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'522 Patent does not describe a technical problem or functional solution. Its purpose is to protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture—in this case, a toy aircraft.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a toy aircraft as depicted in its eight figures (’522 Patent, CLAIM; DESCRIPTION). The design's primary visual features are a generally spherical shape formed by an open, web-like or latticed outer cage that encloses the toy's internal flight mechanisms. Key ornamental aspects include the pattern of the lattice, a solid circumferential band at the sphere's equator, and the specific geometric arrangements at the top and bottom poles, as shown in perspective in FIG. 1 (’522 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented designs are "distinctive" and "broadly recognized by consumers," suggesting the ornamental appearance itself is a key market differentiator (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the design as shown in the drawings. The claim of the ’522 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a toy aircraft, as shown and described" (’522 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
    • A generally spherical overall configuration.
    • An outer cage constructed from an open, interconnected lattice structure.
    • A solid, continuous band encircling the horizontal midline of the sphere.
    • The visual appearance of internal components, such as propellers, visible through the open cage structure.
    • Specific circular and radial patterns at the top and bottom of the sphere.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," identified as "flying toys that closely mimic the design patented by Plaintiff, including the same overall shape, dimensions, and aesthetic features" (Compl. p. 17, ¶10). These products are allegedly sold by numerous online merchants operating under aliases on platforms such as Amazon.com, eBay.com, and Temu.com (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as "cheaply produced and inferior" imitations of Plaintiff's authentic products (Compl. ¶9). The sellers are alleged to be an "interrelated group of infringers" who target consumers in the United States, including Pennsylvania, through online storefronts designed to appear as if they are selling genuine versions of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶39-40). The complaint provides an image from an "Infringing Listing," which depicts a spherical caged flying toy being offered for sale online (Compl. p. 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The complaint alleges that in the eye of such an observer, the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶66). The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the defendants copy "the exact aesthetic design elements of the Patented Design" (Compl. ¶67). A table summarizing the visual comparisons is not applicable in the same manner as for a utility patent; the analysis is holistic.

The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of Plaintiff's work and an "Infringing Listing" (Compl. p. 18). This image shows that the accused product shares the patented design's overall spherical shape, web-like cage, and central equatorial band.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. This will involve assessing whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art in flying toys, would be deceived into purchasing an accused product believing it to be the patented design. The outcome may depend on how much weight is given to the overall visual impression versus any minor differences in the lattice pattern, proportions, or other details between the accused products and the patent's drawings.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis does not involve technical functionality but rather aesthetic appearance. A central issue will be whether the accused products create the same overall visual impression as the ’522 Patent. The defense may argue that any similarities are dictated by function (e.g., a cage is necessary for safety) or are common in the prior art, which could narrow the perceived scope of the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The claim of a design patent is defined by its drawings, not by textual limitations. Therefore, a traditional claim construction process to define specific terms is not performed. The central legal analysis is not the definition of a word but the interpretation of the visual scope of the design as a whole, considered in light of the prior art. The legal inquiry will focus on comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products with the design claimed in the ’522 Patent drawings.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement but does not plead specific facts to support a claim for inducement or contributory infringement, such as allegations of specific intent to cause infringement by others (Compl. ¶69). The primary focus of the allegations is on direct infringement by the defendant sellers (Compl. ¶65).

Willful Infringement

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶72). The complaint bases this allegation on claims that Defendants had "actual and/or constructive notice" of the patent because Plaintiff's authentic products are marked with the patent number pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287 (Compl. ¶71). It is also alleged that Defendants knew of the "popularity and success" of Plaintiff's products and proceeded in "bad faith" (Compl. ¶48).

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

  1. Visual Scope and the "Ordinary Observer": The case's substantive core will turn on a question of visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art for flying toys, be deceived by the similarity between the accused products and the ornamental design depicted in the D'522 patent?
  2. Jurisdiction and Joinder: A significant procedural hurdle will be whether Plaintiff can establish personal jurisdiction over numerous, potentially unrelated foreign sellers in a Pennsylvania court and properly join them in a single action. The defendants' use of online platforms with anonymous aliases will complicate discovery and enforcement.
  3. Proving Willfulness: A key question for damages will be evidentiary: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the anonymous online sellers, operating from foreign jurisdictions, had the requisite pre-suit knowledge of the D'522 patent to support a finding of willful infringement, based primarily on allegations of patent marking on authentic goods and general market awareness?