Yang v. Does 1 89

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Juan Yang (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Exhibit 1 (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: YZ Law Firm LLP
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00992, E.D. Tex., 10/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities or individuals not residing in the United States, which allows them to be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of certain ceiling fans with lights infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer home goods, specifically ceiling fans, a market where aesthetic differentiation is a significant commercial factor.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has granted one non-exclusive license to an Amazon seller, Ping Liu. It also notes that the named Defendants are a collective of online sellers, many with obscured identities, who allegedly began selling infringing products shortly after Plaintiff applied for the patent. This procedural posture suggests an enforcement action against a diffuse network of e-commerce merchants.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,037,519, “Ceiling Fan With Light,” Issued July 30, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not explicitly state a problem, but in the context of design patents, the implicit problem is the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture—in this case, a ceiling fan with an integrated light (’519 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a "Ceiling Fan With Light" (D'519 Patent, Title). The design features a central housing with a light fixture, from which six elongated, slightly curved fan blades radiate symmetrically (D'519 Patent, FIG. 7). The blades have a distinctive contoured shape and surface texture, and the central body has a tiered, modern aesthetic (D'519 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The claim is for the visual appearance of the article as depicted in the patent's drawings (D'519 Patent, Claim).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the unique design has become a "signature element of the Plaintiff's innovative strategy" and is "widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers" with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim of the D'519 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a ceiling fan with light, as shown and described" (D'519 Patent, Claim). This single claim covers the entire visual appearance of the fan as illustrated in Figures 1 through 9 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Infringing Products" are ceiling fans that allegedly embody a design substantially similar to the one claimed in the D'519 Patent (Compl. ¶2, 26).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" on e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Temu, targeting consumers in the United States, including Texas (Compl. ¶2-3, 16). These stores are accused of selling "inferior imitations" that copy Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges these sales began "Shortly after the Plaintiff applied for a Design Patent" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes "Illustration 1," a figure from the patent, to represent the design at issue (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that the Defendants’ products infringe the D'519 Patent's single design claim. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused design is such as to deceive such an observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other.

The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" are "substantially similar to the claimed design of the D519 Patent" (Compl. ¶26). This allegation is supported by reference to visual evidence. For example, the complaint presents a figure from the patent itself to establish the patented design. Illustration 1 in the complaint is a perspective view of the patented ceiling fan design, showing its blade shape and central housing (Compl. ¶10). The core of the infringement allegation rests on a direct visual comparison, with the complaint stating that "visual comparisons in Exhibit 4 of Plaintiff's patented design and the exemplary Infringing Products demonstrate that, in the view of an ordinary observer... the design of the infringing products is so substantially similar... that it would deceive the observer" (Compl. ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the matter such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would confuse the accused products with the patented design. The outcome will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the overall ornamental appearance of the products.
  • Scope Questions: The patent drawings show specific contours, proportions, and surface treatments on the fan blades and housing (D'519 Patent, FIG. 1-9). A key question will be how similar the accused products' features are to these specific depicted elements and whether any differences are significant enough to be noticed by the ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As this is a design patent, the claim consists of the drawings as a whole, and there are no specific textual claim terms that require construction in the manner of a utility patent. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression of the design as shown in the patent figures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "actively and directly participating in, inducing, and contributing to the sale of Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶22). However, it does not provide specific factual allegations to distinguish inducement or contributory infringement from the direct infringement claim of making, using, or selling.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants had actual knowledge of the D'519 Patent (Compl. ¶27). The complaint argues knowledge can be inferred because "The design of Plaintiff's product is well-known throughout the industry, and the infringing products are nearly identical copy of Plaintiff's patented design," making the infringement obvious (Compl. ¶27).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will a fact-finder, acting as an "ordinary observer," find the accused products to be substantially the same in overall ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the D'519 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid confusion?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and willfulness: What evidence, beyond the alleged "nearly identical" copying, can Plaintiff provide to establish that the diffuse network of Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the D'519 patent, or that their conduct was so egregious as to be willful?
3. A significant procedural question will be the identification of Defendants: Given that the Defendants are identified as a collective of online sellers with obscured identities, a primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to successfully serve, establish jurisdiction over, and enforce any judgment against these entities.