Jiang v. Attorney at Law

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ming Jiang (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: The Defendants Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Office of Yifeng Hao
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-03372, N.D. Ill., 03/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants do not reside in the United States and are therefore subject to venue in any judicial district. The complaint further alleges Defendants solicit and transact business in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' online sales of certain pillows infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a pillow.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of ergonomic pillows, a consumer product category focused on providing physical support and comfort.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a group of unidentified online sellers, listed on a "Schedule A," who allegedly operate through various aliases on e-commerce platforms. The complaint asserts that joinder of these multiple defendants is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because they are all alleged to be selling products that are "substantially identical."

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-12-25	D1,049,707 S Priority Date
2024-11-05	U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,707 S Issued
2026-03-27	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,707 S - PILLOW

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges the patented design is for an ergonomic pillow intended for relaxation, which can be used by individuals sleeping on their back or stomach to "naturally stretch the curve of body" Compl. ¶10 Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not functional utility, so the patent itself does not articulate a technical problem.
• The Patented Solution: The '707 Patent protects the specific ornamental design of a pillow as depicted in its eight figures D1,049,707 S, FIG. 1-8 The design features a generally rectangular body with contoured, wave-like indentations on its top and bottom edges and a distinctive, undulating surface profile that includes raised and recessed areas D1,049,707 S, FIG. 1 D1,049,707 S, FIG. 7 The overall visual impression is one of an asymmetric, sculpted form.
• Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design's importance lies in its ergonomics, intended to enhance user comfort Compl. ¶10

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings. The '707 Patent's claim is for "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described" D1,049,707 S, claim
• The asserted claim covers the entire visual appearance of the pillow design illustrated in Figures 1 through 8 of the patent D1,049,707 S, DESCRIPTION

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are pillows ("Infringing Products") allegedly manufactured, imported, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendants through various online e-commerce platforms Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products copy the design of the '707 Patent Compl. ¶1
• Visual evidence provided in the complaint depicts the accused products as ergonomic pillows with shapes and contours that Plaintiff alleges are substantially similar to its patented design Compl. ¶15 The complaint includes a screenshot from an online product page for an accused product, which highlights features such as "Optimal Cervical Support," "Chest Pressure Alleviation," and "Robust Waist & Abdomen Support" Compl. ¶15
• Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' sales are in direct competition with Plaintiff's own product, leading to erosion in market share and lost profits Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶13

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint's allegations are centered on a direct visual comparison.

The complaint presents a side-by-side chart comparing a line drawing from the '707 Patent (FIG. 1) with photographs of three "representative" accused products from Defendants' online stores Compl. ¶15 This chart serves as the primary basis for the infringement allegation, arguing that the accused products are "substantially identical" to the patented design Compl. ¶16 For example, a visual provided for "Representative 2's product page" shows an annotated photograph of a pillow highlighting its ergonomic features and overall shape Compl. ¶15 The complaint contends that the visual similarity is sufficient to cause consumer confusion Compl. ¶16 The pleading also reserves the right to argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶36

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Scope: A central question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '707 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will depend on comparing the patented design's lines, contours, and overall shape with those of the accused products.
  • Procedural Scope: The complaint joins numerous unidentified defendants based on the allegation that their products are all "substantially identical" and derive from the same transaction or occurrence Compl. ¶¶16-20 A likely point of contention will be whether the accused products are sufficiently similar to one another to warrant joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299, an issue the plaintiff preemptively addresses Compl. ¶¶18-19

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. The patent-in-suit is a design patent, which claims a particular ornamental design as a whole, as depicted in its figures. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not contain textual limitations or specific terms that require judicial construction. The single claim is simply for the design "as shown and described" D1,049,707 S, claim

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement Compl. ¶14 It does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might have actively induced infringement or contributed to it, such as by providing instructions or materials to a third-party direct infringer.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are acting "knowingly and intentionally or at least with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights" Compl. ¶25 The complaint further alleges that Defendants' conduct has been "willful, intentional, purposeful, and in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Plaintiff" Compl. ¶30 The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge is pre-suit or post-suit.

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

1. Visual Identity: The central issue will be one of visual comparison: applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused pillows substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '707 Patent, such that an observer would be deceived into purchasing one thinking it was the other?
2. Propriety of Joinder: A threshold procedural question will be one of party consolidation: does the allegation that numerous, separately operating online stores are selling "substantially identical" products satisfy the requirements for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299, or will the defendants be able to argue for severance into individual actions?