Wu v. Corps Partnerships Unincorp Associations Ldentified On Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Danna Wu (China); Shenzhen Luoman Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Corporations, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdiction Undisclosed)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Law Office of Marjorie Ouyang
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01985, W.D. Tex., 06/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the unidentified defendants target and sell products to consumers in Texas through interactive e-commerce websites, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have allegedly sold infringing products to residents of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that numerous unidentified e-commerce sellers are infringing a U.S. design patent for a "Bathing Device" by selling products with a nearly identical ornamental appearance on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of consumer bathroom accessories, specifically concerning the ornamental, aesthetic design of a dual shower head apparatus.
• Key Procedural History: The patent was originally issued to inventor Danna Wu, who later assigned it to co-plaintiff Shenzhen Luoman Technology Co., Ltd. The complaint establishes that Wu retains the right to sue for damages incurred before the assignment, while Shenzhen Luoman Technology Co., Ltd. has the right to sue for damages incurred after. The complaint is filed against a group of unidentified defendants, and plaintiffs argue for joinder based on allegations that the defendants use similar sales tactics, e-commerce store designs, and payment methods, and source products from a common origin.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2024-07-12	Patent Priority Date (D1,067,378 S)
2025-03-18	Patent Issue Date (D1,067,378 S)
2025-07-02	Patent assigned to Shenzhen Luoman Technology Co.
2025-12-05	Original Complaint Filing Date
2026-06-19	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,067,378 - "Bathing Device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not functional utility. While the complaint describes the commercial product as "multifunctional" and providing "comfort and efficiency" Compl. ¶13, the patent itself does not address a functional problem. Instead, it creates a new, specific ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the unique ornamental design for a bathing device D'378 Patent, claim The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of the visual appearance of two shower heads suspended by arms from a horizontal bar D'378 Patent, FIG. 1 The claim is limited to the elements shown in solid lines, which include the specific shape and contour of the shower heads and their immediate connecting hardware; portions shown in broken lines, such as the long horizontal bar, are not part of the claimed design D'378 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique and original design" is a key feature of Plaintiffs' products Compl. ¶13 In the consumer product space, a distinctive ornamental design can be a significant market differentiator.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The complaint asserts this claim Compl. ¶¶29-34
• The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a bathing device as shown and described" D'378 Patent, claim

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Bathing Device" products sold by the unidentified Defendants on e-commerce platforms including Amazon.com, eBay.com, Walmart.com, and Shein Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶6

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products "look almost identical to the products sold by Plaintiffs" Compl. ¶1 They are described as "unauthorized and unlicensed products" Compl. ¶1 and "similar and substandard copies" Compl. ¶11
• The complaint frames the defendants as a network of "sophisticated sellers" who use aliases to conceal their true identities and operate across multiple e-commerce platforms to target U.S. consumers Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶20 The sales are alleged to be part of a coordinated effort, with defendants sourcing products from a "common origin" Compl. ¶26
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, ... is induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other." The complaint alleges that defendants' products infringe the ornamental design of the '378 Patent Compl. ¶32

D1,067,378 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the Single Claim)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a bathing device as shown and described.	Defendants are alleged to manufacture, import, offer for sale, and sell bathing devices that feature an ornamental design that infringes the claimed design Compl. ¶32 The complaint asserts these accused products "look almost identical" to Plaintiffs' products which embody the patented design Compl. ¶1	¶1; ¶32	'378 Patent, FIGS. 1-8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Procedural Question: A primary point of contention, extensively argued in the complaint, is likely to be procedural rather than technical. The complaint's grouping of numerous unidentified e-commerce sellers into a single defendant class raises the question of proper joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The complaint argues joinder is proper because the defendants allegedly engage in the same "transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions" and share common questions of law and fact, evidenced by similar marketing, store designs, and payment methods Compl. ¶¶21-22
  • Scope Question: In design patent cases, the scope of the claimed design is compared to the accused design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. A key question for the court will be whether the accused products, once identified, are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '378 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. The scope of the claim is "the appearance of the design as a whole."

• The Term: "Bathing Device"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent's title and its single claim. While claim construction in design patent cases is rare, a defendant could theoretically argue for a narrow construction. However, the dispute will almost certainly center on a visual comparison of the accused product to the patent's drawings, not the definition of "Bathing Device."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The primary intrinsic evidence is the visual depiction in the patent's figures, not textual definitions.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the ornamental design "for" a bathing device, which is a broad category. The focus is on the aesthetics, not the functional class of the article.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The drawings themselves provide the definitive and limiting scope. The design is precisely what is shown in solid lines in Figures 1 through 8, and nothing more D'378 Patent, description D'378 Patent, FIGS. 1-8

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges defendants are "personally contributing to, inducing, and engaging in the sale of Infringing Products" Compl. ¶7 The factual basis for this allegation is that defendants operate as "partners, co-conspirators, and/or suppliers" in a collective enterprise Compl. ¶7
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement, stating that the infringement is "obvious, notorious, purposeful, and in disregard of and indifferent to the rights of Plaintiffs" Compl. ¶34 It further alleges that defendants had "full knowledge" of the patent rights Compl. ¶16 and used "tactics to evade enforcement efforts," such as operating under multiple aliases and moving funds to off-shore accounts, which could be presented as evidence of willfulness Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶23 Compl. ¶25

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

The resolution of this case appears to depend on three central questions:

1. A question of Civil Procedure: Can Plaintiffs successfully join a large and unidentified group of online sellers as defendants by alleging a "series of transactions" based on shared business tactics and product sourcing, or will the court require individual lawsuits?
2. A question of Visual Comparison: For any defendant properly before the court, does the ornamental design of their accused "Bathing Device" appear substantially the same as the design claimed in the '378 patent to an ordinary observer, thus constituting infringement?
3. A question of Practical Enforcement: Given the allegations of defendants operating through transient online aliases and offshore accounts, a critical question is whether any potential injunction or monetary award can be meaningfully enforced against such a diffuse and allegedly evasive network of sellers.