Zhang v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shuangxi Zhang (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KEMET LAW GROUP, Group; SHM Law Firm
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-20013, S.D. Fla., 01/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' sales of the accused products into the district and because most defendants are Chinese entities with no residence in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce merchants are selling sunglasses on platforms like Amazon that infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of eyeglasses.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of consumer eyewear, a market where distinctive aesthetics can be a significant commercial driver.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that Plaintiff previously filed suit against a subset of the current defendants in the Northern District of Illinois. That case was voluntarily dismissed after procedural issues and Plaintiff's belief that collecting damages would be futile. The current action was subsequently filed in the Southern District of Florida against an expanded list of defendants.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D901,581 - “Eyeglasses”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D901,581, “Eyeglasses,” issued November 10, 2020 (the “D’581 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, as is typical for a design patent. Instead, it addresses the aesthetic challenge of creating a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, specifically eyeglasses D’581 Patent, Title
• The Patented Solution: The D’581 Patent protects the specific visual appearance of eyeglasses as depicted in its eight figures D’581 Patent, Figs. 1-8 The design features a single, continuous lens shield with a distinct angular shape, a prominent nose piece assembly, and sculpted temples D’581 Patent, Fig. 1 The overall impression is that of modern, athletic-style eyewear.
• Technical Importance: The patent protects a specific aesthetic configuration in the competitive field of performance and fashion eyewear, where ornamental design is a primary basis for consumer choice Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

• The D’581 Patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for an eyeglasses, as shown and described" D’581 Patent, Claim This claim covers the visual appearance of the eyeglasses as illustrated in the patent's drawings D’581 Patent, Figs. 1-8

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "sunglasses" sold by Defendants on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon (the "Infringing Products") Compl. ¶9

Functionality and Market Context

• The relevant feature of the Infringing Products is their ornamental design Compl. ¶16 The complaint alleges that the Defendants are numerous, often foreign-based e-commerce operators who use multiple aliases to sell products that have "virtually identical designs" to each other and to the patented design Compl. ¶¶11, 16 The complaint includes photos of the various Infringing Products to illustrate their alleged identical designs Compl. ¶16; Exhibit 7

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary Infringement Claim Chart" as Exhibit 6, which was not provided with the filed complaint Compl. ¶30 The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused sunglasses are visually indistinguishable from the design claimed in the D’581 Patent. The complaint asserts that the Infringing Products have "virtually identical designs" to the patented article and are "the same at least in all aspects relating to the Patent-in-Suit" Compl. ¶¶16, 30 In support of this, the complaint references an exhibit containing photos of the accused products from various sellers to illustrate their identical appearance Compl. ¶16 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 structured to meet this test by asserting a wholesale visual identity between the products and the patent's drawings.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be a direct visual comparison: Would an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, find that the accused sunglasses' design is "substantially the same" as the design shown in the D’581 Patent's figures?
• Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding any subtle differences between the accused products and the patent's drawings. The analysis will consider whether such differences are sufficient to distinguish the designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer or if they are minor variations that do not change the overall visual impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms. In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than words, making disputes over the construction of specific terms less common than in utility patent cases. The central analysis is a comparison of the accused product's overall appearance to the patented design as a whole.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" Compl. ¶29 It does not, however, plead specific facts to support a claim for induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendants knew of the patent and specifically intended for their customers to infringe.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" manufacturing, importing, and selling the Infringing Products Compl. ¶22 For the subset of defendants previously sued in the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff may argue that the prior lawsuit established pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the infringing conduct Compl. ¶24

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two key questions:

1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the ornamental designs of the numerous accused sunglasses "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D’581 Patent, such that an observer would be deceived?
2. A key procedural and remedial question will be one of enforcement: Given that the defendants are alleged to be a network of largely foreign-based e-commerce entities operating under various aliases, can the Plaintiff effectively obtain and enforce an injunction and any monetary judgment against them through the U.S. court system and online marketplace platforms?