Kao v. Hengda Kite

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Juncheng Kao (China)
  • Defendant: Weifang Hengda Kite Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (d.b.a. Hengda Kite) (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aptum Law
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08491, N.D. Ill., 01/15/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendant is not a U.S. resident and may be sued in any district. The complaint also alleges the defendant consented to venue by not raising a Rule 12(b)(3) defense in a prior motion.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s kite products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a kite.
• Technical Context: The dispute relates to the ornamental design of consumer recreational products, specifically delta-style kites sold in the U.S. market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint preemptively addresses potential validity challenges, arguing that certain Chinese design patents should not qualify as prior art because they were not "publicly accessible" to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the patent's priority date. It also argues that Amazon product pages are unreliable sources of prior art due to the potential for sellers to modify listings over time.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D967,279 S - "Kite"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D967,279 S, "Kite," issued October 18, 2022 (the "'279 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’279 Patent does not claim to solve a functional problem. Instead, it protects the novel, non-obvious ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture—in this case, a kite ’279 Patent, Claim
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual design of the kite as depicted in its eighteen figures ’279 Patent, DESCRIPTION The design features a delta-wing shape with distinctive, inwardly curved trailing edges, a prominent central vertical spine that extends below the wing structure to form a tail, and a horizontal cross spar. The overall visual impression is created by the interplay of these shapes and proportions, as shown from various angles (e.g., ’279 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 7).
• Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct aesthetic for a kite within the consumer recreational market.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a kite, as shown and described."
• The essential visual elements comprising the claimed design include:
  • The overall delta-wing configuration.
  • The specific curvature of the wing's trailing edges.
  • The proportions and configuration of the central spine, cross spar, and tail structure.
  • The specific appearance of the structural connectors and cutouts as shown in the rear and detailed views (e.g., ’279 Patent, FIG. 2, FIG. 15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Hengda Kite" or "Kengda Kite" sold on Amazon.com under the ASIN B0DGKZNGHD Compl. ¶¶24-25 These and materially similar kites are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" Compl. ¶25

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are consumer kites sold in the United States through online retailers like Amazon Compl. ¶¶7, 24 The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "materially identical" to the design protected by the ’279 Patent Compl. ¶26 To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of line drawings from the ’279 Patent and photographs of the "Hengda Kite" Compl. p. 2 This visual comparison shows the accused kite, which features colored panels, alongside the uncolored line drawings of the patented design Compl. p. 2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The central question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it was the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "materially identical" to the patented design Compl. ¶26 The following table compares the key ornamental features based on the evidence provided.

'279 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the surface ornamentation (i.e., the colored panels) of the accused kite is sufficient to create a different overall visual impression from the unadorned line-art design claimed in the patent. The infringement analysis for design patents focuses on the overall appearance, and courts must determine if differences in surface coloring are enough to avoid deception in the eye of an ordinary observer.
• Technical Questions: The analysis is not technical but visual. The key evidentiary question will be whether the shapes, proportions, and configuration of the accused kite are substantially the same as those depicted in the ’279 Patent's figures. The side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint is the primary evidence offered to support this point Compl. p. 2

V. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that the defendant induced infringement by "instructing and otherwise encouraging customers of the Accused Products to make and use the Accused Products" Compl. ¶18, p. 10

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged on the grounds that the defendant, as a longtime seller of kites, knew of popular market designs, including the patented design, and nevertheless copied it without authorization Compl. ¶26

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, does the accused "Hengda Kite," with its specific color patterns, create the same overall ornamental impression as the line-art design claimed in the ’279 Patent, or are the differences sufficient to avoid likely confusion?
• A second critical issue, which the plaintiff has preemptively addressed, will be one of patent validity: Do the Chinese design patents and Amazon listings that may be raised by the defendant qualify as publicly accessible prior art capable of invalidating the ’279 Patent, or do they fail to meet the legal standards for public availability and reliability as the complaint argues?