1:26-cv-02289
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: Law Office of Lance Liu
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02289, N.D. Ill., 04/12/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants operating interactive e-commerce stores that target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, and allegedly selling infringing products to residents of the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators infringe a U.S. design patent for a "Ladder Stabilizer" by selling unauthorized products with a copied design.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of ladder stabilizers, which are accessories attached to ladders to enhance stability and safety when placed against a surface.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint, which clarifies that it targets only defendants with confirmed pre-filing sales of the accused products into the judicial district.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-07-20 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 Application Filing / Priority Date |
| 2025-06-24 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 Issue Date |
| 2026-04-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 - Ladder Stabilizer
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,919 (the "'D919 Patent"), Ladder Stabilizer, issued June 24, 2025.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, not its utility. The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a ladder stabilizer D'919 Patent, claim
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a ladder stabilizer as depicted in its eight figures D'919 Patent, FIGs. 1-8 The design consists of a horizontal cross-bar with outwardly angled arms ending in textured contact pads, connected to a central mounting structure featuring two parallel, downward-extending arms designed to attach to a ladder D'919 Patent, FIG. 7 The overall aesthetic is defined by the specific shapes, contours, and configuration of these elements.
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct visual identity for a ladder accessory, allowing it to be distinguished from competing products based on its appearance.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a ladder stabilizer as shown" D'919 Patent, claim
- The claim's scope is defined by the visual impression of the article as illustrated in the patent's eight drawing sheets D'919 Patent, FIGs. 1-8
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Unauthorized Products" sold by the Defendants, who are alleged to be operators of e-commerce stores Compl. ¶3
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are alleged to be ladder stabilizers that are sold via online marketplace platforms like Amazon.com Compl. ¶16 The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate under various "Seller Aliases" to target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, and that these sellers conceal their true identities (Compl. ¶2; Compl. ¶3). The complaint posits that the success of Plaintiff's products has led to significant infringement by these online sellers Compl. ¶16
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in an attached Exhibit B, which was not provided for this analysis. The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the complaint's narrative allegations. The governing standard 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 Defendants have copied Plaintiff's design and that the products sold by Defendants "incorporate each of the design elements claimed in the 'D919 Patent" Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶22 Without the visual evidence from the complaint's exhibits, a direct comparison is not possible.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Comparison: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the 'D919 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This analysis will depend entirely on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products and the patent's figures, which the complaint alleges are detailed in the missing Exhibit B Compl. ¶22
- Scope Questions: In design patent cases, the scope of the claim is the design as a whole, not any single feature in isolation. A potential point of contention could be whether minor differences between the accused products and the patent drawings are sufficient to avoid infringement in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
This section is not applicable, as design patent claims are defined by their drawings rather than textual limitations, and the complaint does not identify any specific terms for construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶23 It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" infringe Plaintiff's patent Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶21 It further states that the infringement "has been and continues to be willful," forming the basis for a request for enhanced damages Compl. ¶25
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Visual Similarity: The dispositive issue for infringement will be a factual one of visual comparison: will the accused products, once identified and presented, be considered substantially the same as the patented design by an ordinary observer, such that a consumer might be induced to purchase an accused product believing it to be the patented one?
Jurisdiction and Enforcement: A significant practical question will be one of jurisdiction and enforcement. Given that the defendants are alleged to be a diffuse network of e-commerce sellers operating under aliases Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶6, key challenges for the Plaintiff will likely involve establishing personal jurisdiction over each defendant, effectuating service, and ultimately enforcing any potential judgment.