DCT
2:25-cv-02009
Chen v. Schedule A
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shiwen Chen (Guangdong, China)
- Defendant: Schedule A Defendants (Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified under seal)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aptum Law
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02009, W.D. Pa., 12/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendants, though anonymous and believed to be foreign, systematically target and conduct business with consumers in the Western District of Pennsylvania through interactive e-commerce storefronts.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are infringing a U.S. design patent by selling unauthorized and "virtually identical" versions of a patented knitted toy.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer product—a knitted toy—in the competitive online retail market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint frames the action as a necessary measure against a "swarm of attacks" from numerous anonymous online sellers who allegedly operate in concert to conceal their identities, suggesting a challenge in enforcing patent rights against diffuse, foreign-based infringers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-08-20 | ’996 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date) |
| 2025-03-25 | ’996 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-12-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,067,996 - "Knitted Toy", Issued March 25, 2025
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While the complaint alleges the patented product was developed to "overcome deficiencies of prior, conventional knitted toys," the design patent itself does not address a technical problem (Compl. ¶7). Instead, it protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, which is the statutory purpose of a design patent.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the knitted toy as depicted in its figures (’996 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The design consists of a crocheted, turtle-like creature with a rounded head, distinct eyes, a textured shell, and four appendages. A key feature is that the toy is shown in a seated position, with its front appendages holding a small, rectangular message panel (’996 Patent, FIG. 2).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the patented design achieved "great commercial success" and "quickly occupied a leading position in the field" due to its "innovative design" and "unique ornamental features" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 13, 14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a knitted toy, as shown and described" (’996 Patent, Claim).
- The "elements" of the claim are the collective ornamental features depicted in the patent's drawings, which the complaint articulates as including:
- A crocheted turtle body with a rounded head, multi-panel shell, and four appendages.
- Stitched facial features including two eyes and a mouth.
- Appendages integrally formed with the body.
- A textured, multi-segment shell pattern distinct from the smoother stitch of the head and limbs.
- A hand-held sign or message panel positioned between the front limbs.
- An overall construction configured to maintain a seated, upright position (Compl. ¶52).
- The complaint does not assert dependent claims, as none exist in a design patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "knitted toys" sold by the Schedule A Defendants on various e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 35).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "virtually identical to the claimed Patent-in-Suit" and alleges they are manufactured by a "common source" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 33). These products are allegedly sold through numerous anonymous online "storefronts" or "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon.com, eBay.com, and Walmart.com, targeting consumers in the United States, including Pennsylvania (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 44). The complaint alleges these storefronts use images that make it "very difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint references Exhibits B-C as containing images of the accused products, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The core of a design patent infringement analysis is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device believing it to be the patented design. The complaint's allegations are summarized below, mapping the plaintiff's description of the patented design's features to the accused products.
D1,067,996 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Ornamental Feature of the Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A crocheted turtle body comprising a rounded head, a multi-panel shell, and four appendages formed from yarn. | The accused products are described as knitted toys that include a crocheted turtle body with these same components. | ¶52 | FIGS. 1-7 |
| The head being configured with stitched facial features including two eyes and a mouth. | The accused products allegedly have a head with stitched facial features, including two eyes and a mouth. | ¶52 | FIG. 2 |
| The shell comprising a textured, multi-segment pattern distinct from the smoother stitch pattern of the head and limbs. | The accused products are alleged to incorporate a shell with a textured, multi-segment pattern that is distinct from the smoother head and limbs. | ¶52 | FIGS. 3, 5 |
| A hand-held sign or message panel positioned between the front limbs and supported by the structure of the toy. | The accused products are alleged to include a hand-held sign or panel positioned and held in the same manner. | ¶52 | FIG. 2 |
| The overall construction being configured to maintain the toy in a seated, upright position. | The accused products are alleged to have an overall construction that maintains the toy in a seated, upright position. | ¶52 | FIG. 4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Question (The Ordinary Observer Test): The central dispute will be factual: is the overall visual appearance of the Defendants' knitted toys "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’996 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The complaint alleges "virtual identicality," which, if proven, would strongly support infringement (Compl. ¶33).
- Scope Question: A potential issue may be whether the scope of the design patent is broad enough to cover any minor variations in the accused products. The analysis will focus on the design as a whole, rather than on isolated features.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on specific textual terms. However, courts may analyze the scope of particular ornamental features as depicted in the drawings.
- The Term: The ornamental design for the "hand-held sign or message panel."
- Context and Importance: This feature is a prominent part of the overall design, contributing to its distinctiveness. Practitioners may focus on this feature because its scope—whether it is limited to a blank, rectangular panel of the exact proportions shown or covers variations—could affect the infringement analysis if Defendants' products feature different shapes, sizes, or have messages on the panel.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The figures depict a simple, unadorned rectangle, which a plaintiff could argue represents the general concept of a panel held in that specific manner, covering minor variations in shape or the presence of text or images on it.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown" (’996 Patent, Claim). A defendant could argue this limits protection to the precise visual representation in the patent drawings: a blank, white, rectangular panel with specific proportions relative to the toy's body, as depicted in Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement but provides no specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants knowingly provided a component for an infringing product or actively encouraged others to infringe (Compl. ¶50). The focus of the complaint is on direct infringement by the sellers.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendants' "actual or constructive knowledge of the Patent-in-Suit," the "significant popularity" of the plaintiff's products, and the "anonymous nature of Defendants" (Compl. ¶55). The theory suggests that the popularity of the patented product makes it more likely that Defendants were aware of the design and copied it intentionally.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of factual comparison: Under the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused knitted toys substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the ’996 Patent? The Plaintiff's allegation of "virtual identicality" suggests this will be the central battleground of the case.
- A key procedural question will be one of enforcement and identity: Can the Plaintiff successfully litigate against a "swarm" of anonymous "Schedule A" defendants? The structure of the complaint highlights the significant practical challenges of identifying, serving, and obtaining relief against numerous, allegedly foreign-based online sellers who actively conceal their identities.
- A secondary issue may be the scope of the design: The case may require determining the precise scope of the ornamental design claimed in the ’996 Patent, particularly whether protection extends beyond the exact visual details shown in the drawings to cover minor variations in the accused products.