1:26-cv-25469
Ningbo Dongchuan Swimming Pool Equipment Co Ltd v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ningbo Dongchuan Swimming Pool Equipment Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Office of Cole Carlson
- Case Name: Ningbo Dongchuan Swimming Pool Equipment Co., Ltd. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-25469, S.D. Fla., 08/13/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants being aliens not resident in the United States, who may be sued in any judicial district, and because a substantial part of the alleged infringing activities occurred within the Southern District of Florida, including offers for sale and shipments to consumers.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' online sales of pool skimmer nets and leaf rakes on platforms like Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and Temu.com infringe a U.S. design patent for a skimmer frame.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of pool maintenance equipment, a consumer product category where visual appearance can be a significant market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint initiates this action and indicates that the defendants are a group of e-commerce operators whose identities are filed under seal in a "Schedule A." Plaintiff also references a contemporaneous, sealed request for a temporary restraining order against the defendants.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-07-26 | '643 Patent Application Filing Date / Priority Date |
| 2024-12-17 | '643 Patent Issue Date |
| 2026-08-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,054,643 - "Skimmer Frame"
Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,054,643, titled "Skimmer Frame," issued December 17, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not contain a background section describing a technical problem. As a design patent, its purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, distinguishing it aesthetically from prior designs Compl. ¶13 '643 Patent, title
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "skimmer frame" as depicted in its figures '643 Patent, claim The design features a generally rectangular frame with rounded corners, a pronounced, forward-scooping lip, and a distinct handle connector at the rear. This connector includes a cylindrical portion for pole attachment and is adorned with a series of raised, triangular fins on its upper surface '643 Patent, FIG. 1 '643 Patent, FIG. 2 The broken lines in the figures indicate that internal components and the precise configuration of the pole-attachment hole are not part of the claimed design '643 Patent, description
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying the patented design have achieved "substantial commercial success in the United States," suggesting the design's aesthetic features provide a competitive advantage in the marketplace Compl. ¶13
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the '643 Patent is asserted Compl. ¶¶20-22
- The claim protects "The ornamental design for a skimmer frame as shown and described" '643 Patent, claim The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's seven figures, which depict the design from various perspectives.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "pool skimmer nets and leaf rakes" sold by Defendants on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and Temu.com Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶2 The complaint collectively refers to them as the "Infringing Products" Compl. ¶2
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendants operate "sophisticated e-commerce storefronts" to sell "directly-competing knockoff products" to consumers in the United States Compl. ¶17 These products are alleged to be "substantially similar, and in many instances identical" to Plaintiff's products embodying the patented design Compl. ¶6 The complaint states that test purchases were made to confirm that the Infringing Products embody the patented design Compl. ¶16
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the single claim of the '643 Patent. The legal standard for design patent infringement is 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. The complaint explicitly invokes this standard Compl. ¶15
Because this is a design patent, the infringement analysis compares the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product with the design shown in the patent's figures. The following table breaks down the key visual features of the patented design and the complaint's corresponding allegations.
D1,054,643 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Patented Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a skimmer frame, comprising a generally rectangular frame with rounded corners. | The Infringing Products "embody, and are substantially the same as, the Patented Design." | ¶14 | FIG. 2 |
| A forward-projecting, downward-sloping lip or scoop integrated with the front edge of the frame. | The design of the Infringing Products is "substantially the same as the Patented Design, such that the resemblance would deceive an ordinary observer." | ¶15 | FIG. 1 |
| A rearward-extending handle connector featuring a series of raised, triangular fins on its upper surface. | Defendants have "applied the Patented Design, or a colorable imitation thereof, to articles of manufacture for the purpose of sale." | ¶22 | FIG. 1 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central dispute will be a factual comparison. Does the overall visual impression of the accused products create a resemblance that would deceive an ordinary observer into believing they are the patented design? The outcome will depend on evidence, such as side-by-side comparisons, that is not included in the complaint.
- Scope Question: The scope of a design patent is influenced by the prior art. A key question for the court, though not raised in the complaint, will be the degree of difference between the '643 Patent's design and pre-existing skimmer frames. If the patented design is only a minor variation of what was already known, its scope of protection against "colorable imitations" may be narrower.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As the '643 Patent is a design patent, its single claim protects the overall ornamental design as depicted in the drawings, rather than a series of text-based limitations. Consequently, there are no specific claim terms that require judicial construction in the manner of a utility patent. The infringement analysis will not turn on the definition of a particular word but on a holistic visual comparison between the patented design and the accused products.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶23 The stated basis for this allegation is that "Defendants, in operating sophisticated e-commerce storefronts selling directly-competing knockoff products, knew or should have known of the '643 Patent and Plaintiff's rights therein" Compl. ¶17 This suggests the willfulness claim is based on alleged objective recklessness rather than specific pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a focused design patent dispute against a network of online sellers. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core factual and visual question: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' skimmer frames substantially the same as the design claimed in the '643 Patent? The resolution will depend on visual evidence of the accused products.
- A question of patent scope in context: How novel is the patented design when viewed against the landscape of prior art skimmer frames? The answer will inform how broad the patent's scope of protection is and how similar an accused product must be to infringe.
- A procedural and evidentiary question: Can the Plaintiff successfully prove that the numerous, anonymous entities listed on "Schedule A" are the correct parties responsible for the specific infringing acts alleged to have occurred in the United States, and can the court exercise jurisdiction over them?