DCT

1:26-cv-01492

Shenzhen Zhiyou Technology Co Ltd v. Li

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01492, N.D. Ill., 02/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants' enforcement actions stopped the sales of Plaintiffs' products to consumers within the district, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their burger press products do not infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D1,063,567 S and that the patent is invalid in light of prior art.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a simple mechanical kitchen utensil, a burger press, sold in the e-commerce marketplace.
  • Key Procedural History: The litigation was precipitated by patent infringement complaints filed by Defendants through Amazon's intellectual property department, which resulted in the suspension of Plaintiffs' product listings. Plaintiffs' invalidity case relies heavily on a European design patent, EU00469919700155, which they allege discloses a design identical to the one claimed in the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-02-18 Publication of alleged prior art 'EU155 Patent'
2022-02-25 Plaintiff NuoXin begins selling accused burger maker
2022-04-06 'D567 Patent application filing date (priority date)
2024-02-01 Plaintiff Zhiyou begins selling accused burger press (approx.)
2025-02-25 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,063,567 S issues
2026-02-09 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,063,567 S - “Burger Press”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,063,567 S (“’D567 Patent”), “Burger Press,” issued February 25, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The 'D567 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead claims rights to a specific aesthetic design for a burger press.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for the burger press as depicted in its figures ('D567 Patent, claim). The design features a cylindrical base mold with a crossbeam-style top cover, through which a spring-loaded plunger with a circular handle operates ('D567 Patent, FIG. 1; 'D567 Patent, FIG. 3). The overall visual impression is created by the combination and arrangement of these elements.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint does not allege any technical or functional importance for the design; its significance is purely ornamental and commercial within the market for kitchen goods.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The 'D567 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a burger press, as shown and described" ('D567 Patent, claim).
  • Unlike a utility patent, a design patent claim is not broken into textual elements but is defined by the visual appearance shown in the patent's drawings. The complaint, for purposes of its invalidity argument, deconstructs the design into several features: a pressing plate (A), a baffle (B), a spring (C), a crossbeam (D), a mold (E), a vertical rod (F), and a top cover (G) (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "Zhiyou's Product B0CQ2GTQ88" and "NuoXin's Product B09TGKQHMK," both described as burger press or burger maker products (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the products as burger makers sold via the Amazon e-commerce platform to U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶9). Their relevant characteristic for this design patent case is their visual appearance. A visual comparison provided in the complaint shows Plaintiffs' products, which, like the patented design, consist of a cylindrical base, a spring-loaded plunger, and a handle (Compl. p. 3). This visual provided by the complaint depicts the 'EU155 Patent' prior art alongside the two accused products (Compl. p. 3).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement complaints to Amazon resulted in the "lock[ing] down" of Plaintiffs' product listings, indicating the products have commercial significance sufficient to warrant litigation (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the Plaintiffs' arguments for why their products do not infringe. The core of the argument is that any interpretation of the 'D567 Patent's claim broad enough to cover Plaintiffs' products would necessarily also cover the prior art 'EU155 Patent', rendering the 'D567 Patent invalid (Compl. ¶21).

'D567 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from 'D567 Patent) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a burger press, as shown and described. The overall designs of the Zhiyou and NuoXin products. Plaintiffs allege their products' designs are substantially the same as the prior art 'EU155 Patent' design. The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison arguing that the patented design, the accused products, and the prior art are all visually similar, and thus the patent claim cannot be validly asserted against the products. ¶¶21-22 'D567 Patent, claim; 'D567 Patent, FIGS. 1-9
Ornamental features including a pressing plate, vertical rod, baffle, spring, mold, top cover, and crossbeam in combination. The complaint alleges that all of these specific design features were disclosed in the 'EU155 Patent' prior to the 'D567 Patent's application filing date. A visual in the complaint labels these features on both the prior art and the patented design to argue they are identical. ¶¶12-13 'D567 Patent, FIG. 1; 'D567 Patent, FIG. 3
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central issue is the scope of the design patent claim in light of the allegedly very similar prior art. The complaint raises the question: "Can the claim of the 'D567 Patent be interpreted to read on either the Zhiyou' Product or the NuoXin's Product... and remain valid" in view of the 'EU155 Patent' (Compl. ¶21)?
    • Technical Questions: Since this is a design patent case, the questions are visual rather than technical. The primary visual question is whether an ordinary observer, viewing the 'D567 Patent design, the accused products, and the 'EU155 Patent' prior art, would consider the designs to be substantially the same. The complaint's three-way comparison table directly frames this question (Compl. p. 6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the visual design as a whole, rather than a set of text-based terms. The construction analysis therefore focuses on the scope of the ornamental design depicted in the patent's figures.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a burger press, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The scope of this design claim is determinative of both infringement and validity. Plaintiffs' entire case rests on the argument that the prior art ('EU155 Patent') is so close to the patented design that the 'D567 Patent's claim scope must be construed very narrowly to survive, and that such a narrow construction would not cover Plaintiffs' products (Compl. ¶21).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader interpretation (the patent holder) would argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of features shown in solid lines in the patent figures ('D567 Patent, FIGS. 1-9). They might argue that minor differences between the patent drawings and the accused products do not alter the overall ornamental appearance in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiffs' complaint provides evidence for a narrower interpretation by repeatedly comparing the 'D567 Patent's design to the prior art 'EU155 Patent' (Compl. ¶¶12-13). Plaintiffs argue the 'EU155 Patent' disclosure is "identical to the claimed design in the 'D567 Patent," which suggests the 'D567 Patent, if valid at all, must be limited to the exact design depicted and cannot have a scope that extends to other similar designs like Plaintiffs' products (Compl. ¶13). The side-by-side annotated images are presented as direct evidence for this narrow scope (Compl. p. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege infringement by the Defendants but instead brings claims against the Defendants related to their patent enforcement activities.

  • Indirect Infringement: Not applicable.
  • Willful Infringement: Not applicable.
  • Patent Misuse and Tortious Interference: The complaint alleges that Defendants' use of the allegedly invalid 'D567 Patent to file infringement complaints with Amazon and "lock down Plaintiffs' Amazon stores shall constitute patent misuse" (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges that these actions constitute tortious interference with business relationships, claiming Defendants knew their patent was invalid and acted with the intent to harm Plaintiffs' business with Amazon (Compl. ¶¶26-27).

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on the answers to three central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of validity: Does the prior art 'EU155 Patent' disclose a design that is either identical to or renders obvious the ornamental design claimed in the 'D567 Patent, thereby invalidating the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103?
  2. The case presents a classic infringement/validity squeeze: Can the 'D567 Patent's single design claim be construed broadly enough to encompass the visual appearance of the Plaintiffs' products while simultaneously being construed narrowly enough to remain valid over the very similar 'EU155 Patent' prior art?
  3. A final question relates to improper enforcement: If the 'D567 Patent is found to be invalid or not infringed, did the Defendants' actions in filing infringement complaints with Amazon, allegedly with knowledge of the patent's invalidity, rise to the level of patent misuse or tortious interference with business relationships?
Loading Complaint