DCT

3:25-cv-00965

Pinghe County Susu Online Store v. Nie

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00965, N.D. Tex., 04/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the Defendant’s purported substantial business activities in Texas, including soliciting business and deriving revenue from Texas residents.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their closet hanger products do not infringe the Defendant's design patent and that the patent is invalid in light of prior art.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of multi-tier, space-saving closet hangers, a consumer product category characterized by high-volume sales on e-commerce platforms like Amazon.
  • Key Procedural History: This lawsuit was filed in response to an intellectual property infringement complaint lodged by the Defendant on Amazon.com against the Plaintiffs. This action resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings, which Plaintiffs characterize as their primary sales channel in the United States, thereby creating the alleged controversy necessary for a declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-01-01 "Tosnail Reference" prior art first available (earliest est.)
2022-09-08 "Niulab Reference" prior art first available on Amazon
2022-09-22 "WEKIWGOT Reference" prior art first available on Amazon
2023-01-01 "GDBAQAN Reference" prior art first available on Amazon
2023-01-12 U.S. Patent No. D1,029,509 application filed
2024-06-04 U.S. Patent No. D1,029,509 issued
2025-03-01 Defendant lodges Amazon infringement complaint (approx.)
2025-04-17 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,029,509 - "METAL TROUSER RACK"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,029,509, "METAL TROUSER RACK", issued June 4, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the field of design patents, the "problem" is the absence of a particular ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new visual appearance for a known article.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, ornamental appearance of a "metal trouser rack" (Compl. ¶19; ’509 Patent, Title). The design consists of a top hook connected to a two-part vertical frame, from which six horizontal tiers extend, with each tier having a clip at both ends (’509 Patent, FIG. 1). The claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of these elements as depicted in the patent's drawings (’509 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic in the competitive market for consumer home goods, where visual appearance can be a key factor in purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a metal trouser rack, as shown and described" (’509 Patent, Claim).
  • As a design patent, its sole claim is defined by the visual characteristics shown in the drawings. The key ornamental features comprising the design are:
    • A top hanging hook.
    • A central vertical frame constructed from two parallel wire-form members.
    • Six vertically-stacked, horizontal rods for hanging items.
    • A pair of clips affixed to the ends of each horizontal rod.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Products are "closet hangers" sold on the Amazon marketplace under ASINs B0CB8B1M41, B0CFTBZFQX, B0CFT4FWJK, B0CW1FDB7B, B0CW1RY3PD, B0CW1QQQY6, B0CXPQJBC8, B0CXPRJ4M1, and B0CXPR1K6N (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The products are described as "functionally equivalent" space-saving hangers (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that the Amazon marketplace is the Plaintiffs’ "primary sales channel into the United States" and that delisting due to an infringement claim results in significant commercial harm, including lost sales, product reviews, and search ranking (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint does not provide images of the Accused Products themselves.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiffs allege non-infringement. The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element analysis of its non-infringement theory. Instead, its primary substantive argument is that the ’509 Patent is invalid, asserting that infringement is impossible for an invalid claim (Compl. ¶38).

The core of the complaint's technical argument is a claim for invalidity based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Plaintiffs allege that the patented design is "explicitly taught or disclosed by the cited prior art references" (Compl. ¶32). To support this, the complaint provides extensive visual evidence. For example, it presents a side-by-side comparison of the patented design with an image of the "Tosnail Reference" prior art hanger (Compl. p. 7). A similar visual comparison is provided for the "Niulab Reference," which also shows a multi-tier hanger with clips (Compl. p. 7). The complaint continues this visual analysis by comparing the patented design to the "WEKIWGOT Reference" (Compl. p. 8). Finally, an image of the "GDBAQAN Reference" is shown alongside the patented design to further support the anticipation argument (Compl. p. 8).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Invalidity Question: The central dispute presented in the complaint is whether the overall ornamental design claimed in the ’509 Patent is substantially the same as any of the four prior art references, which were allegedly available on Amazon before the patent's January 12, 2023 filing date (Compl. ¶¶25-28, 32). The visual evidence provided will be critical to this factual determination.
    • Infringement Question: Should the patent be deemed valid, the question for infringement would be whether an "ordinary observer," giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing one of the Accused Products believing it to be the patented design. A significant evidentiary gap in the complaint is the absence of any images of the Accused Products, which prevents a direct visual comparison with the patented design based on the complaint alone.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For design patents, the claim is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings, rather than any textual description. Formal construction of specific claim terms is therefore not typically a central issue. The legal analysis will likely focus on a comparison of the overall ornamental appearance of the patented design, as a whole, against the Accused Products and the asserted prior art.

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on two primary questions:

  1. A dispositive issue will be one of validity: Is the ornamental design claimed in the D'509 patent anticipated by the prior art hangers that Plaintiffs allege were for sale on Amazon before the patent's filing date? The court's decision will likely depend heavily on a visual comparison between the patent figures and the evidence of the prior art designs.

  2. If the patent survives the validity challenge, a key question will be one of infringement: Would an ordinary observer mistake the Plaintiffs' accused hangers for the patented design? Answering this will require the introduction of evidence showing the actual appearance of the Accused Products, which is currently absent from the complaint.