Li v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xingshao Li (Guangzhou, China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Getech Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-03970, N.D. Ill., 04/16/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue in the Northern District of Illinois is asserted based on Defendants allegedly targeting and making sales to consumers within the district, and on federal statutes permitting lawsuits against foreign defendants in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce stores operated by Defendants infringe a U.S. design patent by selling unauthorized, "virtually identical" versions of Plaintiff's chocolate bar mold.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the market for kitchen and baking tools, specifically silicone molds used for making segmented chocolate bars.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is framed as a single action against a "swarm of attacks" from numerous anonymous online sellers who are alleged to be logically related. No prior litigation, inter partes reviews, or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-05	Plaintiff completes the design for the chocolate mold.
2024-06-21	U.S. design patent application filed (Priority Date).
After 2024-06-21	Plaintiff's product officially launched on Amazon U.S.
2024-08	Plaintiff's initial sales period begins.
2024-10	Plaintiff's sales allegedly drop due to infringing activity.
2024-11-26	U.S. Design Patent D1,052,361 issues.
2026-04-16	Amended Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,052,361 - "Chocolate Bar Mold"

The patent at issue is U.S. Design Patent No. D1052361 (the "'361 Patent"), issued November 26, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '361 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. The complaint provides context that the product design was inspired by a traditional Middle Eastern dessert, Knafeh, and developed to balance functionality with aesthetic appeal for home and professional bakers Compl. ¶7 Compl. ¶15
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental, non-functional appearance of a chocolate bar mold D'361 Patent, Claim The claimed design, illustrated in eight figures, consists of a rectangular tray with a raised outer border and an interior surface divided into a 5x2 grid of ten rectangular, beveled depressions for forming chocolate segments D'361 Patent, FIG. 1 D'361 Patent, FIG. 7 The patent's figures define the visual impression of the design, including its proportions, surface contours, and the arrangement of its features D'361 Patent, FIGS. 1-8
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product's "unique design" and "novel limitations" allowed it to gain rapid market recognition and occupy "a leading position in the field" shortly after launch Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶22

Key Claims at a Glance

• The '361 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a chocolate bar mold, as shown and described" D'361 Patent, Claim
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the mold as depicted in the patent's drawings. Key visual elements include:
  • The overall rectangular shape and proportions.
  • The raised peripheral border.
  • The 5x2 grid of rectangular cavities.
  • The specific contours and beveling of the cavities and dividing walls.
• The patent contains no dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Infringing Products" are chocolate bar molds sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶22

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are "virtually identical" in appearance to the design protected by the '361 Patent Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶53 These products are advertised and sold to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive websites Compl. ¶34 Compl. ¶67
• Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are part of a widespread network of infringers selling goods that are believed to originate from unauthorized manufacturers on wholesale platforms, thereby directly competing with Plaintiff's genuine products Compl. ¶23
• The complaint presents a U.S. Department of Homeland Security infographic to illustrate the scale of the e-commerce counterfeit market in which Defendants allegedly participate Compl. ¶41 Compl. p. 7

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 the accused products are "virtually identical," which directly supports a claim of infringement under this standard.

'361 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single design claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of the chocolate bar mold as depicted in the patent figures.	The accused products are alleged to be "virtually identical - if not the exact same" in appearance to the patented design.	¶46	D'361 Patent, FIGS. 1-8
The overall rectangular shape and proportions of the mold body.	The accused products are alleged to copy the overall form factor of the patented design.	¶53	D'361 Patent, FIG. 7
A raised peripheral border surrounding the internal cavities.	The accused products allegedly incorporate a visually identical raised border.	¶55	D'361 Patent, FIG. 1
An internal 5x2 grid of ten rectangular depressions.	The accused products allegedly feature the same ten-cavity grid layout as the patented design.	¶55	D'361 Patent, FIG. 7
The specific surface contours, proportions, and beveled edges of the cavities and dividing walls.	The complaint alleges the infringing goods copy the Plaintiff's design "in a virtually identical manner."	¶23	D'361 Patent, FIG. 2

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue will be the scope of the '361 Patent's design in light of the prior art. The degree of similarity required for an "ordinary observer" to be deceived depends on how different the patented design is from pre-existing mold designs. The complaint does not address the prior art, which will be a critical element of the court's analysis.
• Procedural Questions: The complaint's joinder of numerous, ostensibly separate sellers into a single lawsuit raises a significant procedural question. The court will need to determine if the Plaintiff's allegations of a "logical relationship" among the Defendants-based on shared business tactics, product sourcing, and communication channels-are sufficient to satisfy the requirements for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 Compl. ¶¶51-60

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction, the process of defining the meaning of terms in a patent's claims, is generally not performed for design patents. The single claim of the '361 Patent refers to the design "as shown and described," meaning the claim's scope is defined by the visual information in the patent's drawings, not by verbal descriptions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation that Defendants "directly and/or indirectly infringe" the '361 Patent Compl. ¶77 It also alleges Defendants are "working in active concert" to sell the Infringing Products Compl. ¶61, which may provide a factual basis for related theories of liability.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, seeking enhanced damages Compl. ¶80 Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶e The allegations are based on Defendants' alleged actual or constructive knowledge of the patent, the popularity of the Plaintiff's product, and the "anonymous nature of Defendants" used to conceal their activities Compl. ¶80 Compl. ¶81

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

This case presents several key questions that are common in modern e-commerce patent enforcement actions:

• A core substantive question will be one of visual comparison: when viewed in light of the relevant prior art, is the design of the accused chocolate molds "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '361 Patent such that an ordinary observer would be deceived?
• A critical procedural question will be one of permissive joinder: has the Plaintiff provided sufficient factual support for its theory that the numerous anonymous "Seller Aliases" are part of a logically related enterprise, or will the court require them to be sued in separate actions?
• A fundamental practical question will be one of enforceability: assuming the Plaintiff prevails, can the court's injunctive and monetary orders be effectively enforced against a diffuse group of foreign-based sellers operating through pseudonyms on global e-commerce platforms?