DCT

1:25-cv-02464

FW v. Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: [Redacted] (People's Republic of China)
    • Defendant: The Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02464, E.D. Va., 12/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are non-U.S. based entities who have minimum contacts with the Eastern District of Virginia by offering to sell, selling, and shipping products to consumers in the district through interactive commercial websites, such as Amazon.com.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various unidentified online sellers are infringing a U.S. design patent by importing, offering for sale, and selling battery cases that are visually indistinguishable from the patented design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a protective battery case, a common accessory in both consumer and industrial electronics for storing and transporting batteries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The case is brought against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common procedural posture for enforcement actions against numerous, often foreign-based, online sellers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-02-16 ’590 Patent Priority Date
2016-06-21 ’590 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D759,590 - "Battery Case"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D759,590, issued June 21, 2016 (the "’590 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address functional problems; rather, they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent provides a unique aesthetic design for a battery case.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a battery case, the features of which are depicted in its eight figures (’590 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design consists of a rectangular box with a hinged lid. Its key ornamental features include two prominent, wide latches on one side; two corresponding external hinges on the opposite side; a circular element on the front face; and an integrated loop or handle on the top edge (’590 Patent, Figs. 1, 5, 6). The claim covers only the elements shown in solid lines; the interior of the case, shown in broken lines, is not part of the protected design (’590 Patent, Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct visual appearance for a common product, allowing for brand differentiation in a crowded market for electronic accessories (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a battery case, as shown and described" (’590 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of this claim are defined by the drawings and include:
    • The overall rectangular configuration of the case.
    • The specific shape and proportion of the two latches on the front-facing edge.
    • The corresponding shape and proportion of the two hinges on the rear-facing edge.
    • The circular feature centered on the upper portion of the front face.
    • The looped handle structure on the top surface.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products" identified as "battery boxes" sold by the various Defendants on Amazon.com storefronts (Compl. ¶¶5, 24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants sell these products through "Infringing Online Storefronts" hosted on Amazon.com, targeting consumers in the United States, including Virginia (Compl. ¶5).
  • These products are alleged to be manufactured by factories in China and sold either directly or through China-based e-commerce platforms to the U.S. market (Compl. ¶17). Plaintiff alleges that the success of its own commercial embodiment of the patented design prompted Defendants to "flood the online market" with these accused products (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As the ’590 Patent is a design patent, infringement is assessed under the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. A traditional element-by-element claim chart is not applicable.

The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Infringing Products" are battery boxes that embody the patented design and include "all of the claimed elements" (Compl. ¶¶24-25). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused products create a visual impression substantially the same as that of the design claimed in the ’590 Patent. The complaint presents a redacted image described as illustrating "embodiments of the... product" from "Figures 5 and 6 of the Patent-in-Suit," directly connecting the patented design to the commercial product (Compl. ¶21). The complaint further states that "Exhibit C contains exemplary claim charts and examples that demonstrate the correspondence of the Infringing Products with the Patent-in-Suit," but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶26).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: A central question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused battery boxes is substantially the same as the design shown in the ’590 Patent. This analysis will involve comparing the accused products to the patented design's combination of shape, latches, hinges, front circular feature, and top loop.
  • Evidentiary Basis: The complaint's infringement allegations currently rest on conclusory statements and a reference to an unavailable exhibit (Compl. ¶¶25, 26). A key issue will be what specific visual evidence Plaintiff provides to demonstrate the design similarity for each of the numerous accused products sold by the unidentified Defendants.

V. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement, stating that Defendants became aware of the ’590 Patent but "refused to cease selling products" and have "intentionally continued their knowing infringement" (Compl. ¶¶33-34). This allegation forms the basis for Plaintiff's request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl., Prayer for Relief).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: Will an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, find the accused battery boxes to be substantially the same as the design depicted in the ’590 Patent, causing them to purchase one supposing it to be the other?
  2. A key procedural and evidentiary challenge will be identifying the anonymous Defendants and linking specific infringing products to each. The case's progression may depend on Plaintiff's ability to obtain seller identification information from third-party platforms like Amazon.
  3. A central question for damages will be one of knowledge and intent: What evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that the unnamed foreign sellers had pre-suit knowledge of the ’590 Patent and deliberately continued their infringing conduct, as required to support the claim of willfulness?