Shenzhen Jian Health Technology Co Ltd v. Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Ji'an Health Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Whitewood Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-01386, W.D. Pa., 06/25/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' offers for sale and sales of infringing products to consumers within the Western District of Pennsylvania via interactive e-commerce stores, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are infringing its U.S. design patent by manufacturing, importing, and selling counterfeit and unauthorized versions of its proprietary body massager.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer health and wellness sector, specifically concerning handheld electronic massage devices, a highly competitive and popular product category.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendants are part of an interrelated network of infringers who use tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple aliases. It does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-05-18	'475 Patent Priority Date (CN Application)
2023-10-16	'475 Patent Application Filing Date
2024-11-05	'475 Patent Issue Date
2026-06-25	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,050,475 - "Massager"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,050,475, titled "Massager", issued November 5, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but rather protect the "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" U.S. D1,050,475 S, p.1 The objective is to create a unique and aesthetically pleasing appearance for a product, in this case, a body massager.
• The Patented Solution: The '475 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a massager, as depicted in its figures '475 Patent, claim The design features a distinct, hook-like or cane-shaped body with a long, curved neck connecting a cylindrical handle to the massaging head '475 Patent, FIG. 1 '475 Patent, FIG. 5 The claim covers the overall shape and proportions, as shown in solid lines, while explicitly disclaiming the appearance of the massaging head and the control buttons, which are depicted in broken lines in the patent's figures '475 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "distinctive" and "highly sought after" by consumers, suggesting its aesthetic value is a key driver of the product's market appeal Compl. ¶32

Key Claims at a Glance

• As with all design patents, there is a single claim: "The ornamental design for a massager as shown and described" '475 Patent, claim
• The essential elements of this claim are the visual characteristics of the massager as depicted in solid lines in Figures 1-8 of the patent, including:
  • A J-hook or cane-like overall profile.
  • A slender, curved neck that transitions into a wider section near the head.
  • A cylindrical handle portion.
  • The specific proportions and transitions between these elements.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," which are described as "unauthorized, unlicensed, counterfeit, and infringing versions of Plaintiff's federally registered design patent" Compl. p.1 These products are allegedly sold by Defendants through online storefronts on platforms such as Amazon, Walmart, and Temu Compl. ¶12

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint characterizes the accused products as body massagers that embody the patented design Compl. p.1 It is alleged that these are "inferior imitations" Compl. ¶36 sold at "significantly below-market prices" (Compl. ¶13), which compete directly with Plaintiff's genuine products and cause consumer confusion Compl. ¶63

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the single claim of the '475 Patent under the "ordinary observer" test, asserting that the accused products are so visually similar to the patented design that a typical purchaser would be deceived into buying the infringing product believing it to be the patent holder's product Compl. ¶63 The complaint alleges that this infringement arises from "copying the exact aesthetic design elements of the Patented Design without authorization" Compl. ¶64

The complaint provides visual evidence in the form of figures from the patent itself. The complaint includes a front perspective view of the patented design, illustrating its overall hook-like shape and proportions Compl. p.14, FIG. 1 A side elevation view is also provided, clarifying the curvature of the neck and the profile of the handle Compl. p.14, FIG. 5 The complaint does not include images of the actual accused products, stating that evidence is attached as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint document Compl. ¶23

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Comparison: The central factual dispute will be a side-by-side comparison of the accused products' designs with the design claimed in the '475 patent. The outcome will depend on whether an ordinary observer, accounting for the prior art, would find the two designs "substantially the same."
  • Scope Questions: A primary legal and factual question will be the effect of the disclaimed elements (the massage head and buttons shown in broken lines). The infringement analysis must focus on the similarity of the claimed solid-line portions (the body shape). This raises the question of whether a defendant's product that copies the patented body shape but uses a different-looking massage head could still be found to infringe.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the visual design itself, and there are typically no textual terms to construe. The critical analysis is of the claim's visual scope.

• The Term: The scope of "the ornamental design for a massager as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: Determining the scope of the design is the core of the case. The analysis will focus on what is claimed (solid lines) versus what is part of the environment or unclaimed (broken lines). Practitioners may focus on this issue because the distinction between the claimed body shape and the unclaimed functional head is dispositive for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff will likely argue that the patent protects the overall visual impression of the massager's unique hook-like shape, and that any product appropriating this overall shape infringes, regardless of minor differences or variations in the unclaimed functional head.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants will likely argue that the design is limited to the exact curves, tapers, and proportions shown in the drawings. They may also introduce prior art to argue that the field of hook-shaped massagers is crowded, limiting the '475 Patent to a very narrow scope of protection and making even small differences in the accused products sufficient to avoid infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" to infringe Compl. ¶61 and that they are part of an "interrelated group of infringers" Compl. ¶57 The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off" infringing products Compl., prayer 1(b), which suggests a theory of induced infringement based on a coordinated enterprise.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendants had "actual and/or constructive notice" of the '475 Patent because Plaintiff's genuine products and/or packaging are marked with the patent number pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287 Compl. ¶68

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

1. Visual Similarity and the Ordinary Observer: The case's outcome will heavily depend on a factual determination: after filtering out the unclaimed portions and considering the prior art, is the ornamental design of the accused products "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '475 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary consumer?
2. Scope and the Impact of Disclaimed Features: A central legal question will be one of claim scope: how will the court treat the explicitly disclaimed, functional elements of the massager (the head and buttons)? The case may turn on whether differences in these unclaimed parts can nevertheless create a sufficiently different overall visual impression to defeat a finding of infringement on the claimed body shape.
3. Procedural Viability of Joinder: The complaint targets a large group of allegedly related online sellers identified only on a sealed schedule. A key procedural hurdle will be establishing that these disparate actors are sufficiently interrelated to be joined as defendants in a single action, a common challenge in large-scale online enforcement lawsuits.