Eway Trading Hangzhou Co Ltd v. Codi

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: EWAY Trading (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. (P.R. China)
  • Defendant: Iaseahk (non-U.S. based)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Office of Lance Y. Liu
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01861, N.D. Ill., 04/24/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a non-U.S. entity, making venue proper in any judicial district, and that infringing products have been offered for sale to residents of the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's cushions, sold through online e-commerce stores, infringe its U.S. design patent for a cushion.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer home good (a cushion) sold in the competitive online marketplace.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an amended complaint. The patent was assigned to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2023, after being issued to the inventor on August 19, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-08-23	'D629 Patent Priority Date
2023-09-26	'D629 Patent assigned to Plaintiff
2025-06-02	Date of customer review cited as evidence of sale
2025-08-19	'D629 Patent Issue Date
2026-04-24	Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,088,629 S - "Cushion"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a technical problem. The 'D629 Patent seeks to protect a "new, original, and ornamental design" for a cushion 'D629 Patent, Director's Grant Letter
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a cushion as depicted in its drawings 'D629 Patent, claim The design features a generally square shape with rounded corners, a top surface with four distinct tufted indentations arranged in a square pattern, and a side profile characterized by three horizontal tiers 'D629 Patent, FIG. 1 'D629 Patent, FIG. 7 The overall visual impression is defined by the interplay of these elements.
• Technical Importance: In the market for consumer goods like cushions, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a key product differentiator and source identifier.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim, which incorporates the figures by reference. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a cushion as shown and described" 'D629 Patent, claim
• The key ornamental elements that constitute the claimed design include:
  • The overall squarish shape with rounded corners.
  • The four circular, tufted indentations on the cushion's top face.
  • The three-tiered structure of the cushion's side profile.
  • The complete visual appearance resulting from the combination of all drawn features.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are cushions sold by Defendant IASEAHK through e-commerce stores, such as Amazon.com, and identified in the complaint by a specific product listing (ASIN: B0DJK1D9VL) Compl. ¶12

Functionality and Market Context

The products function as seating cushions. The complaint alleges they are marketed and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois, via interactive e-commerce websites Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶11 The Plaintiff asserts that these products are "identical or substantially identical" in appearance to the design protected by the 'D629 Patent Compl. ¶12

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused cushions infringe by being "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer Compl. ¶14 The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison to support this allegation. The complaint provides a table comparing photographs of the accused product to the patent drawings, which highlights the allegedly identical curvature, three-tiered side profile, and four top-surface indentations Compl. ¶12

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,088,629 S Infringement Allegations

Key Design Feature (from Figures)	Alleged Infringing Feature	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A generally square cushion with rounded corners and distinct curvature of the top-face edges.	The accused product is a generally square cushion with rounded corners and "identical curvatures of the top-face edges."	¶13	'D629 Patent, FIG. 1
A side profile consisting of three horizontal tiers.	The accused product possesses "three identical tiers to the cushions in the side profiles."	¶13	'D629 Patent, FIG. 5; 'D629 Patent, FIG. 7
A top surface featuring four indentations arranged in a square pattern.	The accused product has "four identical indentations as seen in the isometric views on the cushions."	¶13	'D629 Patent, FIG. 1; 'D629 Patent, FIG. 3
The overall ornamental appearance of the cushion.	The accused product is alleged to have "high similarity as a whole," creating a visual appearance that is "substantially the same" as the patented design.	¶13; ¶14	'D629 Patent, FIG. 1

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • The Ordinary Observer Test: The central question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused cushion supposing it to be the one embodying the patented design. The complaint's side-by-side comparison tables are direct evidence intended to meet this standard Compl. ¶12
  • Scope of the Claimed Design: A potential issue may arise from a discrepancy within the patent itself. The patent's text states, "The broken lines in the drawings illustrate portions of the cushion which form no part of the claimed design" 'D629 Patent, DESCRIPTION, but the figures themselves appear to contain only solid lines. This may create ambiguity regarding the precise scope of the claimed ornamental features, a point a defendant might use to challenge the patent's scope or validity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, as depicted in the figures, rather than on the construction of specific text-based terms.

• The "Claim": The scope of the ornamental design as shown and described in the figures.
• Context and Importance: The dispositive issue is the overall visual impression created by the design. The comparison between the patented design and the accused product must be made for the design as a whole.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff will likely argue that the claim covers the overall configuration and combination of the tiered sides, tufted top, and general proportions, and that any minor variations in the accused product do not alter this overall visual impression. The use of solid lines for all features in the drawings suggests all visible features are part of the claimed design 'D629 Patent, FIGS. 1-8
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could seize on the patent's textual reference to "broken lines" to argue that the patent's scope is ambiguous or indefinite, as the text seems to contemplate unclaimed portions that are not actually depicted as such in the drawings 'D629 Patent, DESCRIPTION This could be used to argue that the patent fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement and requests an injunction against aiding and abetting Compl. ¶17 Compl. Prayer ¶1(b) However, the factual allegations focus on the Defendant's own acts of making, selling, and importing, which primarily supports a theory of direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶22 The complaint also presents what it characterizes as a "bait and switch," where Defendant allegedly uses different images in its product advertising than the infringing product it ships, which is supported by a customer review image Compl. ¶15 Compl. Exhibit 5 This allegation, if proven, may be used to support a finding of willfulness by suggesting an intent to conceal the infringement.

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

• A core question will be one of visual comparison: will the trier of fact, applying the "ordinary observer" test, find the accused cushion to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the '629 Patent, especially in light of the direct visual comparisons provided in the complaint?
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope and validity: does the patent's textual reference to non-existent "broken lines" create sufficient ambiguity to render the claim indefinite, or can the court determine the scope of the claimed design based on the figures alone, which depict all features with solid lines?
• A central evidentiary question regarding damages and intent will be one of commercial practice: does the evidence support the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant engages in a "bait and switch" tactic, and if so, how does that conduct inform the analysis of willfulness?