DCT

1:26-cv-11740

Liu v. Fuzhou Yiqing Trading Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-11740, N.D. Ill., 09/24/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's business activities targeting consumers in the United States and Illinois through a fully interactive e-commerce store on Amazon.com. The complaint alleges Defendant has sold products infringing the Plaintiff's patent to residents of Illinois. Alternatively, jurisdiction is asserted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) for foreign entities with insufficient contacts with any single state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sales of fiber optic patch cables incorporate connectors that infringe Plaintiff's design patent covering the ornamental design of a connector.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the ornamental design of fiber optic connectors, which are ubiquitous components in modern data communications infrastructure, including data centers and telecommunications networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, administrative proceedings such as inter partes reviews, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations appear to be based in part on test purchases of the accused products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-05-22 '971 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2023-12-26 '971 Patent Issue Date
2026-09-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,008,971 - "Connector"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,008,971, "Connector," issued December 26, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utility. The implicit problem addressed is the creation of a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design for a fiber optic connector that is visually distinguishable from prior designs Compl. ¶8
  • The Patented Solution: The ’971 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a fiber optic connector as depicted in its figures (’971 Patent, claim). The design features an elongated body, a distinctively shaped release latch, and a "uniboot" structure where a single cable boot houses two fibers that are then broken out into two contacts at the connector's terminal end (Compl. ¶8; ’971 Patent, Figs. 1, 8). The claimed design is defined by the overall visual impression created by the combination of its contours, proportions, and surface appearances as shown in the drawings (’971 Patent, Figs. 1-9).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic for connectors used in high-demand applications such as data centers and long-distance fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) networks Compl. ¶17

Key Claims at a Glance

  • As a design patent, the ’971 Patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a connector, as shown and described" (’971 Patent, claim).
  • This single claim covers the holistic visual appearance of the connector as illustrated in Figures 1 through 9 of the patent. Infringement is assessed by comparing the overall appearance of an accused article to the design shown in these figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two sets of accused products, "Infringing Product #1" and "Infringing Product #2" Compl. ¶¶15, 17 These are described as "LC to LC Outdoor Armored Fiber Optic Patch Cable" products with a "Uniboot" design, sold in various lengths on the Amazon.com marketplace under the seller alias "ERSTICKT" Compl. ¶¶10, 15, 17

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are fiber optic patch cords intended for uses including FTTH, data centers, and long-distance data transmission Compl. ¶17 The complaint alleges that Defendant's e-commerce business, at least under the identified seller account, is structured around selling these allegedly infringing products and related accessories, suggesting a business model that specifically targets the market for Plaintiff's patented design Compl. ¶41 A visual chart in the complaint shows photographs of the accused products, which appear to be connectors on the ends of fiber optic cables Compl. pp. 8-12

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the design of the connectors on the accused products is "substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the D'971 Patent" Compl. ¶31 In design patent cases, 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 presents its infringement theory through a visual claim chart that juxtaposes figures from the ’971 Patent with photographs of the accused products Compl. ¶24 Compl. pp. 8-12 For example, a top-down view from the patent is compared directly to top-down photographs of the connectors on Infringing Product #1 and Infringing Product #2 (Compl. p. 11, comparing patent FIG. 8 with accused products). The complaint argues that shared features—such as the "overall elongated connector configuration, similar shape and proportions of the connector bodies, and particular ornamental contours, surfaces, and transition regions"—contribute to an overall visual impression that is substantially similar to the claimed design Compl. ¶26

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central dispute will be a visual one. A court will have to determine if the overall appearance of the accused connectors is "substantially the same" as the patented design. Defendant may argue that differences in color (teal vs. blue, as shown in the complaint's photos), surface markings (e.g., "A" and "B" visible on Infringing Product #2), or other subtle aspects are sufficient to distinguish its products from the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
    • Role of Prior Art: The scope of the patented design and the significance of any differences will be assessed in light of the prior art for fiber optic connectors. The ultimate infringement analysis will depend on how crowded the design space was at the time of invention, a factor that will be developed during the case.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As this is a design patent case, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations. Consequently, claim construction of specific terms is not expected to be a central issue in the dispute. The analysis will likely focus on the holistic comparison of the accused designs to the patent's figures under the ordinary observer test.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" Compl. Prayer A.b., the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement. The infringement count is premised on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶34
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶¶28, 43). This allegation is made "on information and belief," with the Plaintiff acknowledging that it "presently lacks access to information concerning Defendant's knowledge of the D'971 Patent" but expects to establish such knowledge through discovery Compl. ¶29 The basis for willfulness appears to be an inference of copying due to the alleged high degree of similarity and the allegation that Defendant's business is focused on the accused products Compl. ¶41

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

  1. Visual Deception: The core question for the court will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art in fiber optic connector design, be deceived into believing that the accused connectors sold by the Defendant are the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’971 Patent, or are the differences in color, markings, and proportions sufficient to avoid infringement?
  2. Defendant Identification and Enforcement: A significant practical issue is the Plaintiff's ability to pursue a remedy against the Defendant. The complaint raises substantial questions about the Defendant's true identity and physical location, alleging the use of aliases and inaccurate address information on its e-commerce storefront Compl. ¶¶11-13 Compl. ¶20 A key challenge for the Plaintiff may be effectuating service and ultimately enforcing any judgment against a foreign entity that is allegedly structured to evade accountability.
  3. Impact of Prior Art: The strength of the infringement case will ultimately be filtered through the lens of the prior art. The scope of protection afforded to the ’971 Patent's design and the legal weight given to any differences between it and the accused products will be heavily influenced by what was already known in the field of connector design.