Zhang v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jianqun Zhang (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Lance Liu, Esq.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02289, N.D. Ill., 03/01/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is 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 committed tortious acts causing substantial injury to the Plaintiff within the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators, collectively referred to as Defendants, are selling ladder stabilizers that infringe Plaintiff's design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a ladder stabilizer, an accessory used to increase the stability and safety of a ladder by widening its point of contact with a structure.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the Plaintiff became the sole owner of the patent-in-suit via an assignment dated July 20, 2022. The complaint is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, alleging they operate under various seller aliases to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 S - Ladder Stabilizer

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 S, titled "Ladder Stabilizer," issued June 24, 2025 (the "'919 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a ladder stabilizer.
• The Patented Solution: The '919 Patent claims the specific visual appearance of a ladder stabilizer as depicted in its eight figures '919 Patent, Figs. 1-8 The design features a central mounting structure with two arms extending outwards and upwards, terminating in contact pads. The overall configuration, proportions, and surface details shown in the various elevational and perspective views constitute the patented design '919 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: Plaintiff alleges it has made a "substantial investment in innovation and design" and that its own products embody the patented design Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶10

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings. The '919 Patent's claim is for "The ornamental design for a ladder stabilizer as shown" '919 Patent, claim

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Unauthorized Products," specifically ladder stabilizers, allegedly sold by Defendants through various online e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon.com Compl. ¶¶3, 16

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are "fully interactive e-commerce stores" that target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, by offering shipping to the United States and accepting payment in U.S. dollars Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶17 The core allegation is that these products copy the ornamental design patented by Plaintiff Compl. ¶9

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the '919 Patent because they are visually similar to the claimed design Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶22 The legal standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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 states that infringement charts comparing the patented design to each Defendant's products are attached as Exhibit B Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶22 However, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint for this analysis. The complaint also references visual evidence in a separate exhibit. Screenshot printouts allegedly showing sales of each Defendant's infringing products are attached as Exhibit C Compl. ¶17

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be whether the accused ladder stabilizers are substantially the same in appearance as the design claimed in the '919 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
• Scope Questions: The scope of a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects, not its functional elements. A potential point of contention may be the extent to which the overall appearance is dictated by function, which could affect the infringement analysis.
• Evidentiary Questions: A key challenge for the Plaintiff may be procedurally linking the various anonymous "Seller Aliases" to the group of "Defendants" and proving that these entities are acting in concert as alleged Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶18

V. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' products infringe "directly and/or indirectly" Compl. ¶21 The factual basis for indirect infringement appears to rest on the allegation that Defendants are "working in active concert" to manufacture, import, and sell the accused products Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶21
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" infringing the patent Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶25 The complaint asserts that Defendants "copied Plaintiff's design" Compl. ¶9, which may serve as the factual predicate for the willfulness claim. Plaintiff seeks treble damages as a result Compl. ¶25 Compl., prayer 6

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's findings regarding three primary issues:

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Does the ornamental design of the Defendants' "Unauthorized Products" appear substantially the same as the design claimed in the '919 Patent to an ordinary observer, thereby satisfying the legal test for design patent infringement?
• A key procedural question will be one of attribution and liability: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove its theory that the numerous e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" are controlled by the named Defendants and are "working in active concert" to infringe the patent?
• A central question for damages will be one of intent: Does the evidence support the allegation that Defendants "copied" the patented design, which would be critical to proving the "knowing and willful" infringement required for an award of enhanced damages?