Xufu Xiamen E Commerce Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Starklink Network Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: XUFU XIAMEN E-COMMERCE CO., LTD (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Starklink Network Technology Co., Ltd (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: JS Law Office
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01702, N.D. Ill., 02/15/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because its products, which are the subject of the dispute, are sold to customers within the district through the Walmart marketplace.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its knit ballet flat shoes do not infringe Defendant's U.S. Design Patent No. D905,385 S, following Defendant's submission of an intellectual property infringement complaint to Walmart that resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of footwear design, specifically concerning the ornamental appearance of women's flat shoes.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant's infringement complaint to Walmart against Plaintiff, leading to the delisting of Plaintiff's products. The complaint raises a potential standing issue, alleging that the USPTO record lists STARWE GLOBAL HOLDING INC. as the patent owner, not the Defendant. Plaintiff also asserts that its own shoe design is based on a separate, authorized design patent, US D1062172 S.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D905,385 S (“the D’385 Patent”), "Shoe," issued December 22, 2020.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but instead protect novel, non-obvious, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. The D’385 Patent provides a new ornamental design for a shoe D’385 Patent, title
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a shoe as depicted in its eight figures D’385 Patent, claim D’385 Patent, FIGS. 1-8 The design features a pointed-toe, heelless, slip-on flat shoe. Key ornamental characteristics include its overall silhouette, a pronounced pointed toe, a smooth upper surface appearance, and a decorative ribbed or pleated pattern around the entire collar of the foot opening D’385 Patent, FIG. 1 D’385 Patent, FIG. 7 The drawings do not depict a texture on the upper portion of the shoe body, suggesting a smooth material D’385 Patent, FIGS. 1, 5-6
  • Technical Importance: In the fashion and footwear industries, unique ornamental designs provide significant market differentiation and brand identity.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a shoe, as shown and described." D’385 Patent, claim
  • The essential visual elements comprising the claimed design include:
    • A slip-on shoe with a flat, heelless sole.
    • A distinctly pointed-toe shape.
    • A continuous, decorative ribbed pattern along the collar of the shoe opening.
    • A smooth, non-textured appearance on the shoe's upper body.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: Plaintiff’s "women's knit ballet flat shoes," sold on the Walmart marketplace under the storefront name "AOMAIS SHOES" (the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶16
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as knit ballet flats that have a "knit upper structure," a "visual appearance emphasizing textile texture," "lightweight construction," a "low block heel," and a "ballet-flat silhouette" Compl. ¶17 Plaintiff states that these products are based on its own authorized design, U.S. Design Patent No. D1062172 S Compl. ¶16
  • The complaint alleges that the Walmart marketplace is one of Plaintiff's "primary channels of trade into the United States," and the removal of its listings has caused significant commercial harm Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶20 The complaint includes a reference to Exhibit 2, which is described as containing pictures of the Plaintiff's product Compl. ¶2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the material differences between its product and the patented design, which form the basis for its non-infringement claim.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Overall Visual Impression: The central question in design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The dispute will focus on whether the differences alleged by the Plaintiff are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression.
  • Scope in a "Crowded Field": The complaint alleges that the relevant design space for knit and woven flat shoes was "crowded" with prior art before the D'385 Patent was filed Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶32 This raises the question of whether the scope of the D’385 Patent is narrow. If the court finds the field was crowded, even small differences between the Accused Products and the patented design may be sufficient to support a finding of non-infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than the construction of individual text-based terms. The primary issue for judicial determination will be the overall scope of the ornamental design claimed in the D'385 Patent.

• The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a "Shoe" as shown in the patent's figures.
• Context and Importance: The resolution of the case depends on how broadly the visual elements of the D'385 Patent are interpreted. The key question is whether the patent protects the general concept of a pointed-toe flat with a decorated collar, or if its protection is limited to the specific visual execution shown in the drawings, including the smooth upper and precise toe shape.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might contend that the key inventive feature is the combination of a pointed toe and a ribbed collar on a flat shoe, and that minor variations in texture or silhouette do not change the overall visual impression.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues for a narrow scope by highlighting specific features shown in the patent figures, such as the smooth, non-textured upper and the lack of a heel Compl. ¶30 The complaint's assertion of a "crowded" prior art field, if proven, would also support a narrower construction, limiting the design's scope to its specific ornamental details to distinguish it from pre-existing designs Compl. ¶31

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, and as such, the Plaintiff does not allege indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The Plaintiff does not allege willful infringement by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff does seek a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle it to attorneys' fees, and requests damages for the Defendant's "improper acts" related to the infringement complaint filed with Walmart Compl., Prayer for Relief D Compl., Prayer for Relief E This suggests Plaintiff believes Defendant's infringement assertions were not made in good faith.

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court's analysis of three central questions:

1. Standing to Assert: A threshold issue is whether the Defendant, SHENZHEN STARKLINK NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, has standing to assert the D’385 Patent, as the complaint alleges the patent is owned by a different entity, STARWE GLOBAL HOLDING INC. Compl. ¶10
2. Scope in a Crowded Field: A critical legal question is whether the market for knit flat shoes constitutes a "crowded field" of prior art, as the Plaintiff alleges Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶32 The answer will determine the scope of the patent's protection and how much weight is given to the visual differences between the products.
3. The Ordinary Observer Test: The ultimate question of non-infringement will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, aware of the prior art, be deceived by the similarity between Plaintiff's knit shoe and the specific ornamental design claimed in the D’385 Patent, or are the alleged differences in texture, toe shape, and overall proportions sufficient to create a distinct visual impression?