Wu v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Juanren Wu (Individual)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ford Banister LLC
• Case Identification: Juanren Wu v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 1:26-cv-00358, N.D. Ill., 02/03/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores, offer shipping to Illinois, and have allegedly sold infringing products to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators, identified collectively on Schedule A, are selling "Unauthorized Products" that infringe a U.S. design patent for a painting pen tip.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to accessories for "diamond painting," a craft hobby where small resin "diamonds" are applied to an adhesive canvas using a specialized pen tool.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint against a schedule of largely anonymous defendants, a common strategy in cases targeting diffuse online sellers. Plaintiff alleges that prior to filing, it had implemented a brand protection program involving the investigation of suspicious websites and online marketplace listings.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,230 S ("the '230 Patent"), "Painting pen tip," issued October 29, 2024.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a functional solution to a problem. The complaint suggests the patented design was created to be distinctive and recognizable within the "diamond painting community" Compl. ¶7
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a pen tip. The claimed design consists of the visual features shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, which include a conical applicator end, a wider flared section above the cone, and a cylindrical upper portion featuring two circumferential grooves for attachment '230 Patent, Figs. 2-9 '230 Patent, description The dashed lines in Figure 1, depicting the body of a pen, represent the environment and are not part of the claimed design '230 Patent, description
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "distinctive," "broadly recognized by consumers," and has become associated with the quality and popularity of the Plaintiff's products Compl. ¶¶8-9
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The '230 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a painting pen tip as shown and described" '230 Patent, claim
  • The essential visual elements of this design claim include:
    • A tapering conical tip portion.
    • A flared, bell-like transition section immediately above the conical tip.
    • A cylindrical attachment section above the flared portion, featuring two distinct grooves.
    • The overall aesthetic impression created by the specific proportions and combination of these features as depicted in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Unauthorized Products" and "counterfeit products," which are diamond painting pens that allegedly embody the patented design Compl. ¶¶2, 9, 34
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are sold by a network of anonymous or pseudonymous defendants through numerous e-commerce stores and online marketplace listings Compl. ¶¶4, 10 These defendants are alleged to be part of an "illegal infringement ring," likely based in foreign jurisdictions such as China, that uses tactics like multiple aliases, shared store templates, and offshore bank accounts to conceal their identities and evade enforcement of U.S. intellectual property laws Compl. ¶¶11, 15, 21-22 The complaint provides a perspective view of the patented design itself as representative of the infringing articles Compl. p. 4

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The test for design patent infringement is 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 alleges that the "Unauthorized Products" infringe the '230 Patent directly and/or through the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶34

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,230 S Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue is evidentiary. The complaint does not contain images of the actual "Unauthorized Products" for comparison, instead showing figures from the patent itself Compl. pp. 4-5 The Plaintiff will need to produce evidence of the accused products' designs to allow for the infringement comparison.
  • Scope Questions: The core legal question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. This analysis will require a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the accused products with the design claimed in the '230 Patent, considering the scope of protection afforded by the patent in light of any relevant prior art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. Consequently, claim construction, the process of interpreting the meaning of claim terms, is typically not a central issue. The scope of the '230 Patent's claim will be determined by the overall visual appearance of the design as depicted in the solid lines of Figures 2 through 9 of the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" as an "illegal infringement ring" and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing acts Compl. ¶29; Compl. ¶31 Compl. prayer 1(b) These allegations may support a theory of joint liability or indirect infringement among the various unnamed defendants.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" Compl. ¶13; Compl. ¶29 This allegation is supported by claims that the Defendants are engaged in selling "counterfeit" goods and have employed fraudulent and evasive business practices, such as using false registration information and multiple aliases, to conceal their infringing activities Compl. ¶¶2, 19, 23

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

This case appears to present three central questions for the court:

1. A primary evidentiary question: Can the Plaintiff produce accused products and demonstrate that their ornamental design is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '230 Patent? The complaint currently lacks this direct visual comparison.
2. A core question of infringement: Assuming evidence of the accused products is presented, does their design deceive an ordinary observer into believing the product is the one shown in the patent? This will involve a visual comparison informed by the scope of the patent's claimed design.
3. A significant procedural and enforcement challenge: Given that the defendants are alleged to be a diffuse network of anonymous foreign entities, a key question will be whether the court can effectively identify the responsible parties, establish jurisdiction, and enforce any potential judgment or injunction.