Tingting v. Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tingting Liu (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Summit Law PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-1472, W.D. Pa., 07/12/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are aliens not resident in the United States and may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including offers to sell and sales of infringing products into the district, occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' online sales of guitar pick holders infringe a U.S. design patent for the ornamental design of a guitar pick holder.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of musical instrument accessories, specifically concerning the ornamental, aesthetic appearance of a product designed to store and display guitar picks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The defendants are identified as a group of unnamed entities operating online storefronts, whose identities are to be determined through expedited discovery.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-08-01	'938 Patent Priority Date
2024-12-10	'938 Patent Issue Date
2026-07-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,053,938 S - "Guitar Pick Holder"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not contain a background section describing a problem. The existence of the patent implies a desire to provide a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a guitar pick holder Compl. ¶2
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a guitar pick holder. The design consists of a vertical member shaped to resemble the headstock of a guitar, which is mounted on a rectangular, tiered base '938 Patent, FIG. 1 The face of the headstock shape features a series of horizontal slots for holding guitar picks '938 Patent, FIG. 1 '938 Patent, FIG. 8 The claim covers the specific combination of these shapes, proportions, and features as illustrated in the patent's drawings '938 Patent, claim
• Technical Importance: The design offers a novel aesthetic for a common consumer product, appealing to musicians by echoing the form of a guitar itself.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a guitar pick holder as shown and described" '938 Patent, claim
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design, as depicted in the solid lines of the patent figures, include:
  • The overall silhouette of the holder, which mimics a guitar headstock.
  • A multi-tiered rectangular base.
  • The specific arrangement and appearance of several horizontal slots on the face of the headstock portion.
• The patent figures show the design from perspective, front, back, right side, left side, top, and bottom views, defining the complete ornamental appearance '938 Patent, DESCRIPTION

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "guitar pick holders" (the "Infringing Products") sold by Defendants through online marketplace storefronts on Amazon.com Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶15

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "materially identical" and embody a design "substantially the same" as the patented design Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶25 These products are allegedly sold in direct competition with the Plaintiff's own products at lower prices Compl. ¶21 The complaint provides representative views of the patented design, including a perspective view that illustrates the overall shape of the guitar-headstock-like body, the tiered base, and the arrangement of horizontal slots, which Plaintiff alleges is embodied in the accused products Compl. p. 2, FIG. 1 Plaintiff's investigator allegedly purchased products from several storefronts, including "POSSHE Direct" and "ColorTown," which were delivered to an address in the district Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶25

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that infringement is established under the "ordinary observer" test, where an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design Compl. ¶30 The complaint references a side-by-side comparison in a "Claim Chart" attached as Exhibit 2, which was not included with the public filing of the complaint Compl. ¶19

In the absence of the claim chart exhibit, the infringement theory is based on the narrative allegation that the "overall appearance of each Infringing Product is substantially the same as the patented design" Compl. ¶19 The core of the infringement claim rests on the assertion that the resemblance is close enough to deceive an observer and induce a purchase Compl. ¶30

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as that of the '938 Patent's design. This will involve comparing the products to the specific shapes and configurations shown in the patent's drawings.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the role of the prior art in the "ordinary observer" analysis. The scope of protection afforded to the '938 Patent will depend on how novel its design is when compared to prior art guitar pick holders. The patent itself cites several prior U.S. design patents '938 Patent, References Cited, which may become relevant in determining the points of novelty of the asserted design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, courts typically do not construe claim terms in a detailed verbal manner as they do for utility patents. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.

• The "Term": "The ornamental design for a guitar pick holder"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the visual scope of this design. The outcome of the case will depend on how an "ordinary observer" perceives the overall visual impression created by the design in the drawings, and whether the accused products create the same impression. Practitioners may focus on identifying the novel ornamental features of the design when compared to the prior art, as these features will be central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a broader scope by focusing on the overall concept-a guitar pick holder in the shape of a guitar headstock. Under this view, minor differences in the specific curves, base dimensions, or slot placement would not alter the overall visual impression and thus fall within the scope of the patent. The claim's language "as shown and described" could be argued to protect the general appearance rather than every minute detail '938 Patent, claim
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue for a narrower scope by emphasizing the exact proportions, the specific curvature of the headstock silhouette, the tiered structure of the base, and the precise angles and spacing of the slots as depicted in the patent figures '938 Patent, FIGs. 1-8 This interpretation would contend that any noticeable deviation in these specific elements creates a different overall visual impression, placing an accused product outside the patent's scope. The use of solid lines for all features indicates that the entire depicted shape is part of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an analysis of indirect infringement. The allegations are focused on direct infringement by the Defendants who are alleged to be selling the accused products Compl. ¶29
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is "knowing, deliberate, and willful" Compl. ¶31 This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that the infringement began "Long after the '938 Patent issued" and that Defendants sell the accused products in direct competition with Plaintiff's own goods Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶21

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

• A Core Factual Question of Perception: The central issue for the court will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. Is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' guitar pick holders substantially the same as the design claimed in the '938 Patent, to the extent that it would deceive a typical purchaser familiar with prior designs?
• The Role of Prior Art in Defining Scope: A key legal and factual question will be how the prior art shapes the scope of the '938 Patent's protection. The degree of similarity required for a finding of infringement will depend on how much of the patented design is novel versus how much is dictated by pre-existing designs for guitar pick holders.
• A Question of Enforcement and Jurisdiction: Given that the lawsuit targets a large, allegedly interconnected group of foreign online sellers operating under fictitious names Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17, a significant practical issue will be one of procedure and enforcement. The case raises questions about the court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction and Plaintiff's ability to effectively enforce any potential injunction or monetary award against a diffuse network of international sellers.