DCT
6:25-cv-00407
Wuxi Gougelila Electronic Commerce Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wuxi Gougelila Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
- Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00407, W.D. Tex., 09/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of pet playpen products infringe its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a pet playpen.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of pet containment products, a consumer goods category where aesthetic appearance can be a significant market differentiator, particularly in e-commerce channels.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2023. A central procedural aspect of the complaint is its attempt to join numerous unidentified online sellers as a single defendant group under 35 U.S.C. § 299, alleging they sell products that are the same in all relevant respects and that their operations are logically interrelated.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-10-11 | U.S. Patent No. D1,085,555 Priority Date |
| 2023-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. D1,085,555 assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2024-04-01 | Plaintiff begins marketing and selling its "Wuxi Products" in the U.S. (approximate date) |
| 2025-07-22 | U.S. Patent No. D1,085,555 Issues |
| 2025-09-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,085,555 - "Pet Playpen"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,085,555, "Pet Playpen," issued July 22, 2025.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a pet playpen (’555 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a pet playpen as illustrated in its seven figures (’555 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The design consists of a rectangular, enclosed structure with large, transparent panels set within a defined frame on each vertical side. The front panel features an integrated door with a horizontal, oblong cutout serving as a handle and two slide-bolt style latches positioned vertically along the opening edge (Compl. ¶12; ’555 Patent, FIG. 2). The overall aesthetic is that of a modern, modular enclosure.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique design" is a key reason for the product's consumer appeal (Compl. ¶12). In the consumer pet products market, ornamental design can be a significant factor in purchasing decisions.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the design as a whole. The sole claim of the ’555 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a pet playpen, as shown and described" (’555 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential ornamental features defined by the solid lines in the patent figures include:
- The overall cubic, box-like configuration.
- The use of framed, transparent side panels.
- A front-facing door with a distinct oblong handle cutout.
- The specific appearance and placement of two slide-bolt latches on the door.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "pet playpen products" sold by the Defendants via numerous online e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶¶3, 18). These are referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products."
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Defendants as a "swarm of foreign counterfeiters" who operate anonymously through various internet storefronts to sell products to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶8). It alleges that the Infringing Products are "the same in all respects relevant to the ’555 Patent" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint references a "Schedule A-1" that purportedly shows a comparison of the Infringing Products to the patented design, but this schedule was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶8). The complaint contains a representative figure from the patent itself, but no images of the accused products. (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe the sole claim of the ’555 Patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and selling the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶30). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint's allegations are summarized below.
D1,085,555 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Sole Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a pet playpen, as shown and described. | Defendants are alleged to be making, using, offering for sale, and selling pet playpen products that embody a design that is the same as or substantially similar to the ornamental design claimed in the ’555 Patent. | ¶¶3, 30 | CLAIM; FIGS. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary question for infringement will be a visual comparison: Are the accused products sold by the Defendants "substantially the same" in overall ornamental appearance as the design shown in the figures of the ’555 Patent? Without images of the accused products, this comparison cannot be made.
- Factual Questions: A key factual question will be whether the plaintiff can prove that the products sold by the numerous, separate defendant entities are, as alleged, "the same in all respects relevant to the ’555 Patent" (Compl. ¶8). This is crucial not only for infringement but also for the plaintiff's joinder theory.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction for design patents is typically limited, as the figures themselves define the claim scope. The title of the patent provides context for the article of manufacture.
- The Term: "Pet Playpen"
- Context and Importance: This term, from the patent's title and claim, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its definition is unlikely to be a point of major contention, as the accused products are also identified as pet playpens. However, the construction of this term establishes the field of the invention for the "ordinary observer" infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a textual definition, which may suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning within the field of pet products.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of the claim is strictly limited to the visual appearance of the "Pet Playpen" shown in the solid lines of Figures 1-7 (’555 Patent, CLAIM; DESCRIPTION). The patent's description notes that "The broken lines depict portions of the pet playpen that form no part of the claimed design," though no broken lines are apparent in the provided figures, suggesting the entire depicted object is claimed (’555 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶29) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A(2)). However, the factual allegations focus on direct infringement by the Defendants through their own sales and offers for sale.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶¶24, 25, 29). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants are operating as intentional counterfeiters who are aware of their infringing activities, rather than any specific allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the ’555 Patent itself (Compl. ¶8).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Procedural Viability: A threshold issue is whether the court will permit the joinder of numerous, separately operated e-commerce stores as a single defendant group under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The case may depend on whether the plaintiff can substantiate its allegations that the defendants' operations are transactionally related and that the accused products are essentially identical.
- Visual Infringement: The core substantive question is one of visual identity: will an ordinary observer, viewing the accused products alongside the figures of the ’555 Patent, find their overall ornamental designs to be substantially the same? The outcome will rely entirely on a visual comparison that is not yet possible based on the complaint alone.
- Enforcement and Damages: Assuming the plaintiff succeeds, a significant practical question will be one of enforcement. The complaint alleges the defendants are anonymous international entities who use various tactics to evade liability (Compl. ¶¶17, 19). This raises the question of whether the plaintiff will be able to effectively obtain and collect damages or enforce an injunction against these sellers.