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: Codi (Non-U.S. based)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Office of Lance Y. Liu
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-03670, N.D. Ill., 04/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a non-U.S. entity subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, having allegedly targeted and sold infringing products to consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce websites.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's cushion products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a cushion.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer home good-a seat cushion-sold in the competitive e-commerce marketplace.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2023.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,088,629 S ("Cushion"), issued August 19, 2025 (the "'D629 Patent").

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional utility. The implicit challenge addressed is creating a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design for a common article of manufacture, a cushion, to distinguish it aesthetically in the marketplace D'629 Patent, title D'629 Patent, claim
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a cushion as depicted in its figures D'629 Patent, claim The design features a generally square shape with rounded corners, a distinct raised border, and a central surface with four symmetrically-placed, circular, indented tufts D'629 Patent, FIG. 1 D'629 Patent, FIG. 7 The claim's scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings; broken lines illustrate portions of the cushion that are not part of the claimed design D'629 Patent, col. 1:61-63
• Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic for a high-volume consumer product, which can be a key differentiator in crowded online marketplaces where visual appeal drives purchasing decisions Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a cushion as shown and described" D'629 Patent, claim
• The essential ornamental elements of the claimed design include:
  • The overall configuration of a generally square cushion with rounded corners.
  • A raised, convex border that frames the perimeter of the top surface.
  • A recessed central panel within the border.
  • A pattern of four circular, indented tufts arranged in a square formation within the recessed central panel.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are cushions sold by Defendant Codi, also identified as "IASEAHK," through e-commerce stores, including Amazon.com Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶12

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as cushions offered for sale and sold to consumers in the United States, including Illinois Compl. ¶4
• Plaintiff alleges Defendant operates "fully interactive e-commerce stores" to target U.S. consumers, accepting payment in U.S. dollars and shipping to Illinois Compl. ¶4 The complaint alleges these products are "counterfeit" and intended to confuse purchasers Compl. ¶16

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused cushion is "identical or substantially identical" to the claimed design, infringing under the "ordinary observer" test established in Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White and affirmed in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. Compl. ¶13 The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison table showing figures from the 'D629 Patent alongside photographs of the accused Codi cushion to illustrate their alleged visual similarity Compl. p. 4

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison of the overall designs.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary legal question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art for cushion designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused Codi product believing it to be the patented design. The dispute will center on the overall visual impression created by the two designs.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused product and the design depicted in the 'D629 Patent's figures. The analysis will focus on whether any differences in shape, proportion, or surface ornamentation between the accused product and the patent figures are substantial enough to prevent an ordinary observer from finding the designs to be substantially the same.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claimed design itself, as depicted in the patent figures, serves as its own definition. Formal claim construction of verbal terms is typically not a central issue as the claim is understood to be for the visual appearance of the article shown in the drawings. The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's figures, and the analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance rather than a dissection of individual elements.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement and aiding and abetting Compl. ¶15 Prayer for Relief ¶1(b) However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as detailing how the Defendant allegedly instructed or encouraged third parties to infringe.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and is "knowingly and willfully" Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶20 The complaint does not assert any facts regarding pre-suit knowledge, such as a notice letter sent to the Defendant. The allegation appears to be based on the act of selling a product that is allegedly "identical or substantially identical" to the patented design Compl. ¶12

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

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: Would an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into purchasing the accused Codi cushion supposing it to be the product embodying the design of the 'D629 Patent? The case will likely depend on a direct comparison of the overall aesthetic impression of the two designs.
• A secondary, but potentially dispositive, question will relate to the context of the prior art: The scope of a design patent's protection can be informed by the designs that came before it. The degree of similarity required to find infringement may broaden or narrow depending on whether the patented design is a significant departure from a crowded field of similar prior art cushions or a pioneering design in a sparse field. The complaint does not provide information on the relevant prior art.