Li v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xingshao Li (Guangzhou, China)
  • Defendant: The Individual, Partnership, or Unincorporated Association Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-15031, N.D. Ill., 12/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant targets and conducts business with residents in the district through interactive e-commerce stores, thereby committing acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online sales of chocolate bar molds infringe Plaintiff's design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a mold.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer kitchenware sector, specifically focusing on silicone molds for confectionery, a market driven by both functional utility and aesthetic design for home and professional bakers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative challenges (e.g., IPRs) related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations heavily focus on the challenges of enforcing intellectual property rights against anonymous, foreign-based sellers operating through e-commerce platforms.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 - "Chocolate Bar Mold"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361, "Chocolate Bar Mold," issued November 26, 2024 (the "’361 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents address the need for novel, non-obvious, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. In this context, the goal was to create a new and unique visual appearance for a chocolate bar mold Compl. ¶14
• The Patented Solution: The ’361 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a chocolate bar mold. The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a rectangular tray with a raised peripheral lip D’361 Patent, FIG. 1 D’361 Patent, FIG. 2 Inside the tray is a grid of twelve rectangular cavities arranged in two columns of six, which form the shape of the final product D’361 Patent, FIG. 7 The overall visual impression is one of a clean, geometric, and symmetrical layout.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the patented design achieved significant market recognition, including a "New Release #1" badge on Amazon, suggesting consumer appeal for its specific aesthetic Compl. ¶¶18-19

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents typically contain a single claim, which incorporates the drawings by reference.
• The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a chocolate bar mold, as shown and described." D’361 Patent, claim
• The essential elements are the visual characteristics of the mold as depicted in Figures 1-8 of the patent, including its overall rectangular shape, the arrangement and proportions of the internal cavities, and the configuration of the surrounding lip.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" chocolate bar molds sold by Defendant through one or more e-commerce storefronts Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶32

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "virtually identical" copies of the design claimed in the ’361 Patent and are sold in the same channels of trade as Plaintiff's own products Compl. ¶¶22-23
• Functionally, the products are used as molds for making chocolate bars Compl. ¶9
• The complaint frames the Defendant as part of a larger "infringement empire" of anonymous online sellers who use fictitious aliases to sell counterfeit or infringing goods, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from authorized products Compl. ¶¶37-40 Compl. ¶46 The complaint includes an infographic from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to illustrate the scale of counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms, an industry it alleges the Defendant operates within Compl. p. 7

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include a claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent is based on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product, believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint asserts that Defendant's products infringe the ’361 Patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶69 The core of the allegation is that Defendant's products are "virtually identical" to the patented design, copying it "in a virtually identical manner" Compl. ¶23 This allegation directly maps to the ordinary observer test by suggesting the overall visual effect of the accused products is the same as the patented design.

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central question will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the drawings in the ’361 Patent. The court will assess whether the designs are "substantially the same," such that an ordinary observer would be deceived.
• Scope of Protection: A potential issue may be the scope of the patented design. Given the simple, geometric nature of a rectangular mold with a grid of cavities, the defense may argue that the scope of protection is narrow and that any minor differences in the accused product are sufficient to avoid infringement. The analysis will focus on the overall ornamental appearance rather than on discrete functional features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim's scope is defined by the patent's drawings rather than by textual limitations. The primary "term" is the name of the article of manufacture.

• The Term: "chocolate bar mold"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its construction is important for determining the scope of the patent and the relevant prior art for infringement and validity analyses. However, given the nature of the product, a significant dispute over the meaning of this term is not anticipated.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any mold intended for forming chocolate bars, regardless of material (e.g., silicone, plastic) or minor functional variations. The specification simply provides drawings without limiting text D’361 Patent, FIGS. 1-8
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: It is unlikely that a narrower interpretation would be advanced based on the intrinsic evidence, as the patent provides no textual basis for one. A defendant might argue, based on extrinsic evidence or prior art, that the term has a more specific meaning in the trade, but this is not suggested by the patent itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement and does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement) Compl. ¶¶67-70
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful Compl. ¶72 This allegation is based on Defendant's alleged "actual or constructive knowledge of the Patent-in-Suit," the "significant popularity" of Plaintiff's products, and the "anonymous nature of Defendant" which suggests an intent to evade liability Compl. ¶¶72-74

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

1. Infringement under the Ordinary Observer Test: The central issue is one of visual comparison: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused chocolate bar mold "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’361 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The case will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent drawings.
2. Enforcement and Remedies: A significant practical question is whether Plaintiff can effectively obtain and enforce relief. The complaint dedicates substantial attention to the Defendant's alleged use of fictitious aliases and operation from foreign jurisdictions Compl. ¶¶32-34 Compl. ¶51 This raises the question of whether the court can exercise personal jurisdiction and, if a judgment is entered, whether Plaintiff can identify the defendant and collect damages or enforce an injunction against a constantly changing online presence.
3. Damages Calculation: If infringement is found, a key question will be the measure of damages. Plaintiff may seek Defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which is specific to design patents. Proving the amount of those profits from an entity alleged to be intentionally concealing its identity and sales data will present a major evidentiary challenge.