2:26-cv-01718
Haohong Electric Technology Hubei Co Ltd v. Schedule A
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Haohong Electric Technology (Hubei) Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A (Jurisdictions Unknown)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: DNL Zito
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-01718, W.D. Pa., 08/16/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants direct business activities to consumers in Pennsylvania through online marketplaces, offer and provide shipping to the district, and cause tortious injury within the Commonwealth.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' sale of "landscape furnaces" on various online marketplaces infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods market for outdoor heating and decorative appliances, specifically portable, stand-alone furnaces or stoves.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patent-in-suit claims priority to a Chinese patent application. No other procedural events such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-05-25 | Priority date from Chinese Application No. 202330314581.6 |
| 2023-07-01 | Approximate first sale date of Plaintiff's product |
| 2023-08-04 | U.S. Patent Application filing date |
| 2025-09-23 | U.S. Design Patent D1,094,670 issues |
| 2026-08-16 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,094,670, titled "Landscape Furnace," issued on September 23, 2025 (the "'670 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The complaint states that the inventor, Min Wang, created a "novel design for a landscape furnace" Compl. ¶5 The implicit problem addressed is the lack of a particular aesthetic combination in the existing market for such products.
- The Patented Solution: The '670 Patent claims the ornamental design for a "landscape furnace" D'670 Patent, claim The design, depicted across eight figures, consists of a tall, slender, cylindrical main body supported by a splayed three-legged tripod base. Adjacent to the main cylinder is a parallel, rectangular fuel hopper connected by a short, angled chute, creating a distinct dual-column profile D'670 Patent, FIG. 1 D'670 Patent, FIG. 5 The claim covers only the elements shown in solid lines, while elements shown in broken lines, such as internal components or portions of the feet, are disclaimed and do not form part of the patented design D'670 Patent, description
- Technical Importance: The design provides a specific, modern aesthetic for a portable outdoor heating device, which the complaint suggests is suitable for use as a "wood pellet fire stove with a heat reflector" Compl. ¶43
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the '670 Patent, which is standard for a design patent.
- The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a landscape furnace, as shown and described" '670 Patent, claim The essential visual elements of this design include:
- The overall elongated vertical form factor.
- A primary cylindrical furnace body.
- An adjacent, parallel, rectangular fuel hopper.
- An angled chute connecting the hopper to the main body.
- A splayed, three-legged tripod stand supporting the structure.
- The complaint does not assert any dependent claims, as design patents do not have them.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "landscape furnaces" sold by the numerous, unidentified Defendants through "pseudo-anonymous online commerce storefronts" on platforms like Amazon.com Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶8
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as "knockoff Infringing Products" that are "substantially identical" to the design claimed in the '670 Patent and to Plaintiff's own commercial embodiment Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶22 These products are allegedly sold in direct competition with Plaintiff's furnace, which is marketed through a licensee in the United States Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶23 The complaint alleges that these sales erode Plaintiff's market price and goodwill Compl. ¶6.e Compl. ¶34
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references Exhibit B, an exhibit containing side-by-side comparisons and claim charts which was not provided with the pleading; therefore, a claim chart table cannot be constructed. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The core of the infringement allegation is that the Defendants' products are "substantially identical" to the claimed design of the '670 Patent Compl. ¶44 The legal test for design patent infringement is 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 alleges that the similarity is so high that "consumers are likely to be confused" and that any differences are "insubstantial" Compl. ¶22 The infringement theory rests on the visual comparison between the Defendants' products and the ornamental features shown in solid lines in the figures of the '670 Patent Compl. ¶24
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the scope of the patented design in light of any prior art. While the complaint does not discuss prior art, a court's "ordinary observer" analysis must account for it. The dispute may focus on whether the similarities between the accused products and the '670 Patent relate to novel ornamental features or to features common in the prior art for landscape furnaces.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will turn on a visual comparison. A key question is whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the claimed design. This raises the question of whether any differences in proportion, surface ornamentation, or the configuration of unclaimed elements are sufficient to distinguish the accused products in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the patented design is typically not subject to traditional claim construction, as the drawings themselves are the claim. However, the title provides context for the "article of manufacture" to which the design is applied.
- The Term: "Landscape furnace"
- Context and Importance: This term, from the patent's title and claim, defines the article of manufacture. Its interpretation frames the context for the "ordinary observer" test. Practitioners may focus on this term to define the relevant field of products and prior art that an ordinary observer would be familiar with. The dispute is not over a specific definition but over the visual comparison of products within this category.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint uses the term "landscape furnace" to refer generally to the class of outdoor heating devices at issue Compl. ¶1 This may support a view that the term encompasses a range of similar outdoor wood or pellet stoves.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual embodiment in the patent figures shows a very particular type of device: a portable, pellet-fed stove with a distinct tripod base and side-mounted hopper D'670 Patent, FIG. 1 The complaint's description of the product as a "wood pellet fire stove with a heat reflector" Compl. ¶43 could be used to argue for a narrower context limited to this specific functional type of furnace.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes a passing reference to products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly" Compl. ¶45 However, the pleading lacks specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as instructing third parties on how to infringe. The core allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendants through their own acts of making, importing, offering for sale, and selling the accused products Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶45
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants are infringing "knowingly and intentionally, or at least with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights" Compl. ¶36 It further alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendants "are aware of Plaintiff and the Asserted Patent" Compl. ¶16.h These allegations form the basis for a claim of willful infringement, which, if proven, could lead to enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an "ordinary observer," taking into account the prior art, find the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' products to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '670 Patent, or are the visual differences sufficient to avoid infringement?
- A significant procedural question will be the viability of joinder: Can the Plaintiff successfully maintain a single action against numerous, pseudo-anonymous "Schedule A" defendants by demonstrating that their alleged infringing acts arise from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" as part of an "intertwined...web of infringement" Compl. ¶22(c) Compl. ¶27?
- A key evidentiary challenge will relate to causation and damages: Assuming infringement is found, can the Plaintiff prove that the collective actions of many disparate online sellers were the proximate cause of specific, quantifiable harms like market-wide price erosion and degradation of goodwill Compl. ¶34?