DCT

1:25-cv-01809

Ningbo Jiuli CNC Machinery Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Ningbo Jiuli CNC Machinery Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 1:25-cv-01809, W.D. Tex., 11/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and have sold products to consumers in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling laser boresighter products that infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves laser boresighters, which are devices used to align the sights or optics of firearms with the barrel, facilitating an accurate "zeroing" process.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a "swarm of foreign counterfeiters" who allegedly operate anonymously through various online storefronts. Plaintiff argues for joinder of these disparate defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299, alleging their activities are sufficiently interrelated and involve the same accused product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-08-24 Plaintiff allegedly began marketing its laser boresighter products in the U.S.
2023-06-16 Earliest priority date for the ’104 Patent (Application Filing Date)
2024-08-13 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,104 issues
2025-11-11 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,039,104 - “Laser Boresighter”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a technical solution to a problem. The complaint alleges that the patented design is "unique" and popular with consumers for its aesthetic contribution to a functional product (Compl. ¶12).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’104 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a laser boresighter as depicted in its figures (’104 Patent, Claim). The claimed design features an elongated, cylindrical body composed of several distinct visual elements, including a series of stepped-diameter sections on its upper portion separated by recessed circumferential grooves, transitioning to a wider, smooth base (’104 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The broken lines shown in the figures depict portions of the laser boresighter that are not part of the claimed design (’104 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's products embodying this design are "loved by consumers" due in part to the unique appearance claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the sole claim of the ’104 Patent (Compl. ¶31). Design patents contain a single claim, which reads: "The ornamental design for a laser boresighter, as shown and described" (’104 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential elements of the claim are the visual features of the article shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
    • An elongated cylindrical body.
    • An upper portion with multiple segments of varying diameters.
    • Recessed circumferential grooves separating the upper segments.
    • A flared transition to a wider, smooth lower base section.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "laser boresighter products" sold by Defendants through various online e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3). These are collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges Defendants operate numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" to market and sell the Infringing Products to consumers in the United States, including Texas (Compl. ¶¶2, 4). The complaint provides a representative figure from the ’104 Patent, illustrating the claimed cylindrical design with its distinct stepped sections and grooved rings (Compl. p. 5).
  • The complaint alleges these sellers are part of a "swarm of foreign counterfeiters" who use anonymity and multiple storefronts to evade enforcement (Compl. ¶8). While the complaint states that schedules showing images of the Infringing Products and screenshots of the online listings were filed with the court, these schedules were not included in the provided document (Compl. ¶¶8, 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central allegation is that the accused laser boresighters sold by Defendants embody an ornamental design that is substantially the same as the one claimed in the ’104 Patent, thereby infringing its single claim (Compl. ¶31). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

Because the complaint did not include the referenced exhibits containing images of the accused products, a direct visual comparison is not possible. The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the products shown in the un-provided Schedule A-1 are "the same in all respects relevant to the ’104 Patent" (Compl. ¶8).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented design. The analysis will have to properly account for the portions of the article shown in broken lines in the patent figures, as those elements are disclaimed and cannot form the basis of an infringement finding (’104 Patent, Description).
    • Visual Comparison Questions: Without visual evidence of the accused products, the core question remains open: what specific visual similarities and differences exist between the Infringing Products and the design claimed in the ’104 Patent? The resolution of the case will depend almost entirely on a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent figures.

V. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" and acting "jointly and severally" to infringe, which may suggest a theory of joint liability or induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶29, 30). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" in the infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶A).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint repeatedly alleges that Defendants’ infringement has been "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶¶25, 26, 30). This allegation appears to be based on the characterization of the Defendants as intentional "counterfeiters" rather than on specific evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶8). Based on this allegation, Plaintiff seeks treble damages (Compl. ¶36).

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

  1. Visual Infringement: The dispositive issue will be one of visual comparison: are the accused laser boresighters sold by the various Defendants "substantially the same" in ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the ’104 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser? The answer will depend on visual evidence not present in the complaint itself.
  2. Procedural Joinder: A threshold question is procedural: can Plaintiff successfully join a large number of disparate online sellers as defendants in a single action under 35 U.S.C. § 299 by arguing their sale of allegedly similar products constitutes the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions"?
  3. Enforcement and Damages: Should infringement be found, a practical challenge will be enforcement. Key questions will involve identifying the anonymous defendants, securing jurisdiction, and collecting a potential damages award, which could be based on Defendants' total profits under the specific provisions for design patent damages (35 U.S.C. § 289).