Tan v. Xianghuo

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cong Tan (China)
  • Defendant: Dongguan Xianghuo Trading Co., Ltd d.b.a, Xianghuo; and Denghao Qing (China)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Aptum Law
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05003, N.D. Ill., 04/08/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants target and conduct business with consumers in the state through interactive commercial online stores, allegedly shipping infringing products to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "knock-off" storage box products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a "Storage Box."
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of consumer storage products, a market where visual appearance and aesthetic features can be significant factors in purchasing decisions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint includes extensive alter ego allegations, asserting that the individual defendant, Denghao Qing, is the alter ego of the corporate defendant and should be held personally liable. The complaint also notes that the corporate defendant has previously been sued for patent infringement in the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-03-12	U.S. Patent No. D1,054,752 Application Filing / Priority Date
2024-12-24	U.S. Patent No. D1,054,752 Issue Date
2026-04-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,054,752 (the '752 Patent), titled "Storage Box," issued on December 24, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '752 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Instead, it protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture Compl. ¶6 The complaint suggests the design was developed to achieve a combination of "aesthetic appeal and functionality" Compl. ¶6
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a storage box, with the scope of the design being defined entirely by the drawings '752 Patent, claim Key visual features shown in the patent figures include a wheeled rectangular container with a top lid, a drop-down front door featuring vertical ribbing, and side panels adorned with a pattern of concentric, recessed rectangles '752 Patent, FIG. 1 '752 Patent, FIG. 5
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product embodying the patented design was the "first to market, with a well-earned reputation for quality and innovation" Compl. ¶7

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a storage box, as shown and described" '752 Patent, claim
• The core ornamental features depicted in the patent drawings include:
  • An overall rectangular prism shape with wheels at the four bottom corners.
  • A lid covering the top opening.
  • A prominent, drop-down access door on the front face, characterized by a pattern of fine vertical ribs and a small central handle element.
  • Side panels featuring a repeating pattern of concentric, recessed rectangles.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "knock-off" storage boxes sold by Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶35

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as storage boxes sold online to consumers in the United States, including in Illinois Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶27 The complaint alleges Defendants market these products through numerous online storefronts, potentially on platforms such as Amazon, using tactics to conceal their identities, including operating under fictitious names and copying Plaintiff's original product listings Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶34 The complaint includes a drawing of the patented design for illustrative purposes. The complaint provides a perspective view of the patented design, showing a wheeled rectangular box with a drop-down front door Compl. ¶8, FIG. 1

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references Exhibits B and C as showing the accused products but does not attach them, precluding a direct visual comparison or the creation of a detailed claim chart. The infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import "knock-off products" that are visually the "same" as the design claimed in the '752 Patent Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶39 The infringement standard for a design patent 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 one. The complaint's core assertion is that the accused products are direct copies that create a visual impression substantially the same as that of the patented design Compl. ¶3 The complaint further notes that the accused products may be offered in different colors, but argues that color should not be considered a differentiating factor Compl. p.2, n.1

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the design claimed in the '752 Patent. This analysis will depend entirely on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the patent's drawings.
• Technical Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be establishing the precise appearance of the accused products. As the complaint relies on unprovided exhibits, discovery will be necessary to obtain exemplars of the accused products to facilitate the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is not typically a central issue in design patent litigation. The single claim covers the ornamental design "as shown and described," meaning the patent's drawings define the scope of the protected design '752 Patent, claim The complaint does not raise any issues that would necessitate the construction of specific terms. The dispute will likely focus on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the design as a whole rather than the interpretation of any particular term.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against individual defendant Denghao Qing Compl. ¶¶43-47 The basis for this claim is the allegation that Mr. Qing, through his "full control" of the defendant company, knowingly "enabled and directed" the company to sell products that infringe the '752 Patent Compl. ¶45 The complaint asserts Mr. Qing knew of the patent and knew the company's actions constituted infringement Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶46
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" Compl. ¶36 This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale and sold "knock-off products" Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶35

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: Does the overall ornamental appearance of the accused storage boxes create substantially the same visual impression as the design claimed in the '752 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the patent drawings.
• A key procedural question will be one of personal liability: Can the plaintiff successfully "pierce the corporate veil" based on its detailed alter ego allegations Compl. ¶¶12-26 to hold the individual defendant, Denghao Qing, personally liable for the company's alleged infringement and any resulting damages?
• A central question for remedies will be one of intent: Do the facts support the allegation that Defendants' infringement was "willful" Compl. ¶36? A finding of willfulness could expose Defendants to enhanced damages or an award of their total profits from the sale of the infringing articles pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.