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 and La Fiore (United States)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Office of Lance Y. Liu
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-03670, N.D. Ill., 06/18/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants' operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' cushion products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a cushion.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods sector and concerns the ornamental design, or non-functional appearance, of a seat cushion sold through online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventor to the Plaintiff prior to the patent's issuance. No other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-08-23	'D629 Patent Priority Date
2023-09-26	'D629 Patent assigned to Plaintiff
2025-08-19	'D629 Patent Issue Date
2026-06-18	Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect non-functional, ornamental appearances rather than solving technical problems. The 'D629 Patent addresses the need for a new and distinct aesthetic design for a cushion, an article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a cushion as depicted in its figures 'D629 Patent, claim The design consists of the overall visual impression created by a combination of features, including a generally square shape with rounded corners, a tufted top surface with four circular indentations, a raised perimeter, and a curved side profile 'D629 Patent, FIG. 1 'D629 Patent, FIG. 5 'D629 Patent, FIG. 7 The patent's description notes that broken lines in the drawings illustrate portions of the cushion that form no part of the claimed design, specifically disclaiming the linear indentations shown between the four circular tufts on the top surface 'D629 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The design provides a specific, potentially proprietary visual appearance for a common consumer product, which may serve to differentiate it from competing products in the marketplace 'D629 Patent, FIG. 1 Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The 'D629 Patent claims "The ornamental design for a cushion as shown and described" 'D629 Patent, claim
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • A generally square shape with rounded corners.
  • A tufted top surface featuring four distinct circular indentations.
  • A raised perimeter border surrounding the central tufted area.
  • A convexly curved side profile.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "cushion products" sold by Defendants Codi and La Fiore Compl. ¶10

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants sell the accused cushions through commercial internet-based e-commerce stores, including Amazon.com Compl. ¶11 The complaint asserts that the design of the accused products is "identical or substantially identical to the claimed design" in the 'D629 Patent Compl. ¶12 A visual provided in the complaint shows the accused product is a seat cushion intended for consumer use. The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison table juxtaposing figures from the 'D629 patent with photographs of the accused cushion sold by the Defendants Compl. ¶12, p. 4

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 purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused product is "identical or substantially identical" to the patented design, meeting this standard Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶13

'D629 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature (as shown in 'D629 Patent)	Alleged Infringing Appearance (as shown in Compl. ¶12)	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A generally square cushion with rounded corners and a raised perimeter border.	The accused product photograph shows a cushion with a generally square shape, rounded corners, and a raised perimeter border.	¶12	'D629 Patent, col. 2:1-5
A top surface with four distinct, circular tufted indentations.	The accused product photograph shows a top surface with four distinct, circular tufted indentations arranged in a similar pattern to the patented design.	¶12	'D629 Patent, col. 2:1-5
A convexly curved side profile.	The accused product's side-view photograph shows a convexly curved side profile that visually corresponds to the patented design's profile.	¶12	'D629 Patent, col. 2:7-8

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential issue for the court will be the scope of the claimed design, particularly in view of the portions disclaimed via broken lines in the patent's figures 'D629 Patent, description The analysis will question whether the overall visual impression of the accused product is substantially similar to the claimed design when these disclaimed elements are properly excluded from consideration.
• Visual Comparison: The central question for the fact-finder will be the holistic visual comparison between the patented design and the accused product. The dispute may turn on whether any perceived differences in proportion, curvature, or surface detail are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from finding the two designs substantially the same.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is typically not a central issue in design patent cases, as the claim is understood to be the design as shown in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance rather than the definition of specific terms. However, the scope of the claim as a whole will be paramount.

• The "Term": "The ornamental design for a cushion"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus not on defining a word, but on establishing the overall visual impression conveyed by the patent's figures and how it compares to the accused product and the prior art.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope would assert that the claim covers the overall visual gestalt of a four-tufted, square-ish cushion with a raised border and that the solid-line drawings define this protectable appearance 'D629 Patent, FIGS. 1-8 This interpretation would treat minor variations in proportion or detail as irrelevant.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope would emphasize that the claim is limited to the specific proportions, curvatures, and surface details exactly as depicted in the solid lines of the drawings. They would also use the patent's disclaimer of matter shown in broken lines to argue that the scope is precisely confined to the claimed elements 'D629 Patent, description The existence of relevant prior art, if introduced, could further narrow the scope of what is considered novel and protectable in the design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a request for relief enjoining "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement Compl. Prayer 1(b) However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by making, using, and selling the accused products and do not appear to plead specific facts supporting the knowledge and intent required for a standalone claim of induced or contributory infringement Compl. ¶15
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and continues to be willful" and that they acted "knowingly and willfully" Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶20 The complaint does not, however, provide a specific factual basis for this knowledge, such as receipt of a notice letter or knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit.

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' cushion so similar to the design claimed in the 'D629 patent that an observer would be deceived into believing the products are the same? This will require a holistic assessment by the fact-finder, guided by the visual evidence presented.
• A second key question will involve the scope of protection: How broad is the protection afforded to the 'D629 patent's design in light of the prior art? While not addressed in the complaint, the introduction of prior art designs by the defense is a standard litigation tactic that could narrow the patent's scope, thereby requiring a greater degree of identity between the accused product and the patented design for a finding of infringement.