DCT

2:26-cv-02113

Ye v. Schedule A

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-02113, W.D. Pa., 09/25/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants, as foreign entities, may be sued in any judicial district. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have committed acts of infringement with significant contacts in the district by directly targeting and shipping products to consumers in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores on the Walmart marketplace are selling molds that infringe a U.S. design patent for a "multiple-use mold".
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to ornamental designs for kitchen baking tools, specifically silicone molds, where novel aesthetic features are a key driver of consumer interest and market success.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings. The suit is structured as an action against numerous, unidentified "Schedule A Defendants," a common strategy in cases targeting alleged counterfeiters on large e-commerce platforms who operate under aliases.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-03-XX Plaintiff completes design of the silicone mold.
2024-06-XX Plaintiff’s product officially launches for sale on Amazon US.
2024-11-06 Earliest priority date for D'729 Patent (CN 202430702582.2).
2025-01-12 Plaintiff files U.S. design patent application.
2025-10-14 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,097,729 issues.
2026-09-25 Complaint filed.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,097,729, titled "Multiple-use mold," issued on October 14, 2025 (the "D’729 Patent").

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,097,729 - "Multiple-use mold"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: While design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution, the complaint provides a market context, suggesting a commercial need for original and creative designs for baking tools to capture consumer attention and build brand identity, especially for seasonal occasions like Halloween Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶18
  • The Patented Solution: The D’729 Patent protects the ornamental design for a mold. The design consists of a rectangular tray holding eight individual, three-dimensional cavities arranged in two columns D’729 Patent, Fig. 7 Each cavity embodies a stylized, ghost-like figure with indented facial features, a tapering body, and a fluted bottom edge, creating a distinct overall visual appearance D’729 Patent, Figs. 1-3
  • Technical Importance: The commercial value of the design is rooted in its unique aesthetic, which the complaint alleges led to rapid market traction and brand recognition Compl. ¶23

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of the patent's single claim Compl. ¶80
  • The claim is for "the ornamental design for a multiple-use mold, as shown and described" D’729 Patent, claim The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings, the key elements of which include:
    • The overall configuration of a rectangular tray with eight cavities in a two-by-four grid.
    • The specific three-dimensional shape of each cavity as a stylized ghost figure.
    • The ornamental surface features, including indented eyes and mouth on each figure.
    • The fluted, wavy pattern at the base of each ghost figure.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products, mainly including molds" sold by the Schedule A Defendants through e-commerce storefronts on the Walmart marketplace Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants sell "low-price infringing products" that copy the Plaintiff's patented design Compl. ¶26 These products are alleged to be "identical or substantially similar" to Plaintiff's products and are offered through anonymous "seller aliases" to conceal the operators' identities Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶55 The complaint contextualizes this activity within a broader "infringement empire" of counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms Compl. ¶42 The complaint includes an infographic from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detailing the multi-billion dollar scale of counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms to support its allegations of a coordinated, large-scale operation Compl. p. 9

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused molds are "substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the Patent-in-Suit" and that "an ordinary observer... would be deceived into believing that the Infringing Products are the same as the patented design" Compl. ¶79 The infringement analysis will center on a visual comparison between the accused products and the figures in the D'729 Patent.

D’729 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (Visual Feature from D’729 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of a multiple-use mold as shown. The accused products are alleged to be molds that are "substantially the same" in design as the patented mold. ¶79 Figs. 1-2
A rectangular tray containing eight cavities arranged in two columns of four. The accused molds allegedly copy this overall configuration and arrangement. ¶79 Fig. 7
Each cavity embodying the specific three-dimensional, stylized ghost-like figure. The individual cavities of the accused molds are alleged to copy the patented ghost-like shape. ¶79 Fig. 3
Indented surface features representing eyes and a mouth on each figure. The accused molds allegedly incorporate the same or substantially similar ornamental facial features. ¶79 Fig. 3
A fluted or wavy bottom edge on each figure. The accused molds allegedly replicate the ornamental fluted base of the patented design. ¶79 Fig. 1

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central issue will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. A court will need to determine if the accused products and the patented design are substantially the same in overall visual appearance, such that a typical purchaser would be deceived.
  • Scope Questions: A potential question, common in design patent cases, is whether any features of the patented design are dictated primarily by function rather than ornament. If a court were to find certain features to be functional, those features would be given less weight in the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable. The patent-in-suit is a design patent, and its single claim is defined by the ornamental design depicted in the drawings, not by textual terms that would be subject to claim construction proceedings in the manner of a utility patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement of the patent Compl. ¶78, but it does not plead specific facts to support a separate claim for induced or contributory infringement under patent law. The primary patent infringement theory is direct infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement Compl. ¶82 The asserted basis for willfulness is the Defendants' alleged "actual or constructive knowledge of the Patent-in-Suit," which is purportedly based on the popularity of the Plaintiff's product, the "substantially identical" nature of the accused products, and the Defendants' use of anonymous aliases Compl. ¶82 Compl. ¶83

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

  1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case's outcome will hinge on a visual comparison. A core question for the court will be: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused molds substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'729 Patent, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer?
  2. Defendant Identification and Liability: A key evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to successfully serve and prove liability against the anonymous "Schedule A Defendants." A central question will be: What evidence can Plaintiff gather and present to pierce the anonymity of the online seller aliases and link specific infringing acts to the responsible entities?
  3. Willfulness and Knowledge: Assuming infringement is established, a critical issue for damages will be willfulness. The court will need to resolve the factual question: Does the evidence support the allegation that Defendants had actual or constructive pre-suit knowledge of the D'729 Patent, or did their knowledge only arise upon receiving notice of the lawsuit?