1:26-cv-05240
Dongguan Jiajieshi Technology Co Ltd v. Procter & Gamble Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dongguan Jiajieshi Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Ohio)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Valley & Summit Law
Case Name: Dongguan Jiajieshi Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Procter & Gamble Company
Case Identification: 1:26-cv-05240, N.D. Ill., 05/13/2026
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the Defendant conducts business in the district and directed its enforcement activities, including the Amazon IP complaints at issue, toward sellers operating within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an Amazon seller, seeks a declaratory judgment that its cleaning pad products do not infringe Defendant's design patent and that the patent is invalid, following Defendant's submission of infringement complaints to Amazon that resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings.
Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a cleaning wipe or mop pad, a product category with significant competition on e-commerce platforms where visual appearance can be a key differentiator.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant submitted multiple patent infringement complaints to Amazon against Plaintiff's product listings. These actions prompted Amazon to remove Plaintiff's listings, disrupting its business and leading Plaintiff to file this declaratory judgment action to resolve the questions of infringement and validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-10-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,048,624 Filing Date |
| 2024-10-22 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,048,624 Issue Date |
| 2026-02-07 | Defendant submits Amazon IP complaint(s) |
| 2026-02-25 | Defendant submits Amazon IP complaint |
| 2026-03-18 | Defendant submits Amazon IP complaint |
| 2026-04-16 | Defendant submits Amazon IP complaint |
| 2026-05-13 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,048,624 S - "Cleaning Wipe"
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D1,048,624 S, titled "Cleaning Wipe", issued on October 22, 2024 (the "''624 Patent").
The Invention Explained
Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The patent aims to provide a new, original, and ornamental design for a cleaning wipe D'624 Patent, claim
The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a cleaning wipe as depicted in the patent's figures D'624 Patent, claim The design features a rectangular pad with a complex and textured top surface composed of what appear to be interwoven or overlapping strips, creating a non-uniform, tufted appearance D'624 Patent, FIG. 1 D'624 Patent, FIG. 13 The patent notes that broken lines illustrate features that form no part of the claimed design, and gray shading illustrates color contrast, not surface ornamentation D'624 Patent, p. 2
In the consumer products market, a distinct ornamental design for a disposable or reusable item like a cleaning wipe can serve to differentiate a product line and build brand recognition.
Key Claims at a Glance
Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a cleaning wipe as shown and described." D'624 Patent, claim This claim protects the visual appearance of the cleaning wipe as illustrated in the patent's fourteen drawing sheets.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "cleaning pad products" manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff on Amazon through storefronts named "Bisenkud," "WYnice," and "XUNWUKUN-US" Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶¶14-18
Functionality and Market Context
The products are cleaning pads sold to customers in the United States via Amazon Compl. ¶10 The complaint alleges that these products are a source of a "stable business" for the Plaintiff and that their removal from Amazon caused significant disruption, loss of sales, and reputational harm Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶23 The core of the Plaintiff's non-infringement position is that its products "differ in overall visual impression from the design claimed in the '624 Patent" Compl. ¶22
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint, a declaratory judgment action, does not contain infringement allegations against the Plaintiff but rather sets forth the Plaintiff's position of non-infringement. It does not provide a detailed element-by-element comparison or a claim chart. Instead, it makes a holistic assertion that its products do not infringe. The complaint states that "Plaintiff's products consist of cleaning pad products that differ in overall visual impression from the design claimed in the '624 Patent" and "do not create the same overall visual impression as the claimed design" Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶27 The infringement test for a design patent is that of an "ordinary observer," which involves a side-by-side comparison to determine if the designs are substantially the same.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue is whether an ordinary observer, comparing the Plaintiff's cleaning pads to the design in the '624 Patent, would be deceived into believing the accused products are the same as the patented design. The complaint's assertion that the products "differ in overall visual impression" directly frames this as the primary point of dispute Compl. ¶22
- Validity Questions: The complaint raises a direct challenge to the patent's validity, alleging that "similar products have been sold prior to the filing of Defendant's Patent" Compl. ¶26 This suggests a potential dispute over whether the patented design was novel and non-obvious in light of prior art at the time of filing.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction does not involve interpreting verbal terms as it does in utility patent cases. Instead, the "claim" is understood to be the design as depicted in the patent's drawings. The court's role is typically to describe the visual features of the patented design, which then serves as the basis for comparison with the accused product. Therefore, this case is not expected to feature a dispute over the definition of any specific term. The analysis will focus on a visual comparison between the patented design as a whole and the accused products.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege patent-related claims of indirect or willful infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer. The complaint does, however, contain allegations related to the Defendant's enforcement actions.
Tortious Interference: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "baseless and duplicative patent infringement complaints" to Amazon constituted intentional and unjustifiable interference with Plaintiff's business relationships with Amazon and its customers Compl. ¶31
Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices by "submitting false and misleading patent infringement complaints to Amazon, falsely representing that Plaintiff's products infringed the '624 Patent" Compl. ¶35
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A question of visual comparison: Will a fact-finder, applying the "ordinary observer" test, conclude that the overall ornamental design of Plaintiff's cleaning pads is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '624 Patent? The outcome will likely depend on a direct visual comparison of the products.
- A question of validity: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence of prior art, as it alleges exists Compl. ¶26, sufficient to prove that the '624 Patent's design was either anticipated or would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill at the time the patent was filed?
- A question of enforcement conduct: Independent of the patent issues, did the Defendant's act of filing multiple infringement complaints with Amazon, which Plaintiff characterizes as "baseless" and "malicious" Compl. ¶12, cross the line into tortious interference or a deceptive trade practice under Illinois law?