Dongguan Tesimai Electronic Technology Co Ltd v. Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dongguan Tesimai Electronic Technology Co., Ltd (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (residing in the People's Republic of China and other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Whitewood Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00621, W.D. Pa., 04/10/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, specifically the offering for sale and selling of infringing products to consumers, occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling flying toy products that infringe Plaintiff's design patent for a "Toy Aircraft."
• Technical Context: The technology falls within the popular consumer electronics market for toy drones and flying orb devices, where ornamental design is a significant differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patent. It does allege that Plaintiff licenses its intellectual property to other manufacturers and that its own products are marked with the patent number, which may be relevant to questions of damages and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-04-03	'522 Patent - Priority Date
2020-07-28	'522 Patent - Issue Date
2023-12-21	Copyright Registrations - Effective Date
2026-04-10	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D891,522 - "TOY AIRCRAFT"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D891,522, "TOY AIRCRAFT," issued July 28, 2020 (the "'522 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '522 Patent does not describe a technical problem or solution. Instead, it claims a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a toy aircraft.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the toy aircraft as depicted in its eight figures '522 Patent, FIGS. 1-8 The design consists of a generally spherical body enclosed in a cage-like lattice structure. This lattice is composed of irregularly shaped, non-uniform polygonal cells, creating a web-like appearance over the top and bottom hemispheres '522 Patent, FIG. 1 '522 Patent, FIG. 7 A solid-appearing band runs along the equator, separating the two hemispheres, and internal components like propellers are visible through the openings in the cage '522 Patent, FIG. 3
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying this design are known for being "distinctive," "innovatively designed," and are "broadly recognized by consumers" Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶31

Key Claims at a Glance

• The '522 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a toy aircraft, as shown and described" '522 Patent, claim
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • A generally spherical, caged overall shape.
  • A surface lattice composed of varied, non-uniform polygonal shapes.
  • A solid equatorial band separating the upper and lower hemispheres.
  • Distinctive, more concentric patterns at the top and bottom poles.
  • Internal mechanical elements, such as propellers, visible through the cage.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "flying toys" referred to generally as the "Infringing Products," which are allegedly sold by numerous online retailers identified as "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon.com, eBay.com, and Walmart.com Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶34

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "flying toys that closely mimic the design patented by Plaintiff, including the same overall shape, dimensions, and aesthetic features" Compl. ¶11, p. 17 It further characterizes them as "cheaply produced and inferior to Plaintiff's licensed products," suggesting they compete on price in the same online marketplaces Compl. ¶6 The complaint includes a table showing figures from the asserted patent to illustrate the design at issue Compl. ¶31

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that "In the eye of an ordinary observer, the design of Defendants' Infringing Products and the designs claimed in the Asserted Patent are substantially the same" Compl. ¶52

D891,522 Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a feature-by-feature breakdown of infringement. Instead, it makes a holistic allegation that the accused products copy the overall ornamental design. The following table summarizes this allegation by breaking the patented design into its key visual components.

Claim Element (from the '522 Patent drawings)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a toy aircraft	The accused flying toys allegedly embody a design that is "substantially the same" and "closely mimic[s]" the patented design.	¶52; ¶11, p. 17	FIGS. 1-8
A generally spherical, caged body	The accused products are alleged to have the "same overall shape, dimensions, and aesthetic features" as the patented design.	¶11, p. 17	FIG. 1
A surface lattice of varied, non-uniform polygonal shapes	The complaint alleges the infringing design involves copying the "exact aesthetic design elements" and "unique structural elements" of the patent.	¶53	FIG. 1; FIG. 7
A solid equatorial band	The accused products are alleged to be "substantially indistinguishable from the Asserted Patent."	¶53	FIG. 3

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be how the court defines the scope of the claimed design. The analysis may turn on whether the overall impression of a "spherical caged drone" is what is protected, or if protection is limited to the specific, irregular, web-like pattern of the lattice shown in the drawings.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges Defendants make "subtle changes to their Infringing Products" Compl. ¶8 This raises the evidentiary question of whether these changes are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression that would prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived. The degree of similarity between the accused products and the patent figures will be the primary factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the drawings themselves, and its construction is typically a verbal description of the claimed design. There are no traditional textual terms to construe.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a toy aircraft"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of this "term." The court's verbal description of the figures will define the boundaries of the patent's protection. Practitioners may focus on whether the construction emphasizes the overall configuration or the specific surface ornamentation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader interpretation might argue that the core ornamental feature is the overall visual impression of a spherical drone enclosed in any web-like, caged structure with a central band, as depicted generally in Figure 1 '522 Patent, FIG. 1
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower interpretation would point to the specific details of the design. This includes the particular non-uniform, polygonal shapes of the lattice, the specific arrangement of those shapes, and the distinct, more geometric pattern shown at the top and bottom poles of the device, arguing that these specific details are what make the design ornamental and distinguishable from the prior art '522 Patent, FIG. 7 '522 Patent, FIG. 8

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. While it uses the word "indirectly" in passing Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶55, the single count for patent infringement is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) Compl. ¶49 The allegations focus on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused products.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement Compl. ¶58 The stated basis is that Defendants had "actual and/or constructive notice" of Plaintiff's patent rights because Plaintiff's authorized products are marked with the patent number pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287 Compl. ¶57

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

1. The Core Visual Test: The case will fundamentally depend on an issue of visual comparison: Is the overall ornamental design of the various accused products "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '522 Patent in the eye of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
2. Scope and Functionality: A key legal question will concern the scope of the design patent: To what extent are the features of the claimed design, such as its spherical cage and lattice structure, dictated by the function of protecting the user and the internal propellers, versus being purely ornamental? The court's filtering of functional aspects will be critical in defining the scope of the design to be used in the infringement comparison.
3. Jurisdiction and Enforcement: Given that the defendants are alleged to be a diffuse group of foreign-based online sellers operating under various aliases Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶36, a significant practical question will be one of jurisdiction and proof: Can the Plaintiff effectively establish personal jurisdiction over, and gather necessary evidence from, these disparate entities to prove its case and obtain a meaningful remedy?