DCT

1:26-cv-01693

Pearsons Luggage & Gifts Inc v. Zhongchuang Jiutong Technology Tianjin Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01693, W.D. Tex., 06/23/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendants' U.S. design patent for a storage bin is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by Plaintiffs' products, following Defendants' use of the patent to have Plaintiffs' product listings removed from an e-commerce platform.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of plastic storage bins, a high-volume consumer product category where visual appearance is a key market differentiator, particularly in online retail.
  • Key Procedural History: The catalyst for this lawsuit is a series of infringement notices allegedly submitted by Defendants to Amazon.com, which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiffs' products. The complaint alleges the asserted U.S. patent is invalid and/or unenforceable because its design was fully disclosed in earlier Chinese and European patents and that Defendants failed to disclose this prior art to the USPTO during prosecution.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-08-01 '675 Patent Priority Date (via CN 702017030389476)
2020-08-04 Chinese design patent CN305961397S issued
2022-03-04 European Union design patent EU008867147 issued
2023-07-07 '675 Patent application filed
2024-01-01 Plaintiffs allegedly began selling the "Removed Products"
2025-12-23 U.S. Design Patent D1,106,675 S issued
2026-01-01 Defendants allegedly began sending infringement notices to Amazon.com
2026-06-23 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,106,675 S - "Storage Box"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,106,675 S ("Storage Box"), issued December 23, 2025 ('675 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The implicit challenge addressed is creating a novel and non-obvious aesthetic design for a common article of manufacture-a storage box-to distinguish it in the marketplace.
  • The Patented Solution: The '675 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a storage box as illustrated in its nine figures '675 Patent, claim Key visual features shown in solid lines, and thus part of the claimed design, include a rectangular bin with a multi-ribbed lid, integrated side handles that appear to function as latches, vertical ribbing on the side walls, and a structured bottom with corner-mounted casters or feet '675 Patent, FIG. 1 '675 Patent, FIG. 8 The patent explicitly notes that broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the storage box that form no part of the claimed design '675 Patent, description
  • Technical Importance: In the market for consumer goods like storage bins, a distinct visual design can be a significant commercial asset, driving consumer choice and brand identity on crowded e-commerce platforms ('Compl. ¶10; Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint addresses the single claim of the '675 Patent, which is standard for a design patent.
  • The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a storage box as shown and described" '675 Patent, claim The scope of this claim is defined by the solid-line drawings in the patent. Its essential visual elements include:
    • The overall configuration and proportion of the storage box and lid.
    • A lid with a repeating pattern of recessed parallel channels.
    • Tapered side walls with a pattern of vertical ribs.
    • Handles integrated into the rim of the box.
    • A structured bottom including cross-bracing and feet/casters.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • As this is a declaratory judgment action, the products at issue are those sold by the Plaintiffs, referred to in the complaint as the "Removed Products" Compl. ¶13 These are identified as "packs of different sized plastic storage bins" sold on Amazon.com under various Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶13

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint depicts the Plaintiffs' products as plastic storage bins with lids and latches, sold in multi-unit packs Compl. p. 3 An image in the complaint shows clear plastic bins with black lids and latches, as well as opaque grey bins with yellow lids and black latches.
  • The complaint alleges these products have been sold continuously since 2024 and have been "tremendously successful" on multiple online platforms Compl. ¶12 The dispute arose when Defendants allegedly used the '675 Patent to have these products delisted from Amazon.com Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶28 The complaint includes a screenshot of an infringement notice from Amazon, identifying one of Plaintiffs' products by its title and ASIN Compl. p. 7

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, the complaint does not provide a traditional infringement claim chart. Instead, it asserts Plaintiffs' products do not infringe. The infringement analysis in a design patent case turns on the "ordinary observer" test: 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 table below compares the visual features of the patented design with the Plaintiffs' product as depicted in the complaint to frame the visual comparison central to the dispute.

'675 Patent Design Comparison

Patented Design Feature (from '675 Patent Figures) Corresponding Feature on Plaintiff's Product (from Compl. p. 3) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A lid with a pattern of recessed parallel channels and a raised perimeter. The depicted lids on Plaintiffs' products also feature a pattern of recessed channels and a raised perimeter. ¶11; p. 3 FIG. 7
Side handles integrated into the rim of the box that appear to function as latches. Plaintiffs' products are shown with separate, dark-colored latching handles that pivot from the bin body to secure the lid. ¶11; p. 3 FIG. 1; FIG. 5
A pattern of vertical ribs on the tapered side walls of the bin. The clear version of Plaintiffs' bin shows smooth, non-ribbed, tapered side walls. The opaque version shows a different pattern of broader, vertical recessed panels. ¶11; p. 3 FIG. 3
A structured bottom with what appear to be integrated casters or feet at the corners. The bottom structure of Plaintiffs' products is not clearly visible in the provided images. ¶11; p. 3 FIG. 2; FIG. 8
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question is whether the overall visual impression of Plaintiffs' products is "substantially the same" as the patented design. The analysis may focus on whether differences in the latching mechanism (integrated vs. separate pivoting latch) and the side-wall texturing (ribbed vs. smooth/paneled) are significant enough to differentiate the designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
    • Prior Art Questions: The complaint's primary argument is that the '675 patent is invalid over prior art, specifically a Chinese patent and an EU patent that allegedly disclose all its features Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶33 If these prior designs are found to be very similar to the '675 patent, it would narrow the scope of protection for the '675 patent's design, making it easier for Plaintiffs to argue that minor differences in their products are sufficient to avoid infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, "claim construction" is not about defining words but about determining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's drawings.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a storage box as shown and described."

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this design claim is the crux of the infringement question. The court's interpretation of what constitutes the "design" and how much variation it tolerates will determine whether Plaintiffs' products fall within its boundaries. Practitioners may focus on how the alleged prior art (the Chinese and EU patents) limits the protectable scope of the '675 patent's design to only its novel aspects, if any.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favors Patent Holder): A party could argue that the overall visual impression of a lidded, ribbed storage container is the core of the design, and minor variations in the number of ribs or the specific latch style do not change that impression. The claim covers the design "as shown," and an argument could be made that this captures the overall aesthetic.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favors Accused Infringer): Plaintiffs will likely argue that the design is limited to the exact details shown in the solid-line drawings, such as the specific pattern and number of ribs on the lid and sides, and the integrated handle design '675 Patent, FIG. 1 '675 Patent, FIG. 7 The complaint's heavy reliance on allegedly identical prior art designs Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶21 supports an argument that any protectable scope must be extremely narrow, covering only trivial differences from those prior designs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: No allegations of indirect infringement are made in the complaint.

  • Willful Infringement / Exceptional Case: Plaintiffs do not allege willfulness but do seek a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle them to attorneys' fees Compl., prayer c The basis for this claim appears to be the allegation that Defendants engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to disclose known, material prior art-specifically the Chinese and EU patents-to the USPTO during the prosecution of the '675 Patent Compl. ¶37 The complaint also highlights that the infringement notices sent to Amazon allegedly and misleadingly identified Kenny Liu as the patent owner, when the patent itself lists Zhongchuang as the assignee Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶32

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

  • A primary issue will be one of patent validity: Is the '675 patent invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under § 103 in light of the earlier Chinese and EU patents, which the complaint alleges are visually indistinguishable from the patented design?
  • A secondary question, contingent on the patent surviving the validity challenge, will be one of infringement scope: Are the visual differences between Plaintiffs' products (e.g., separate pivoting latches, different side-wall textures) and the patented design significant enough to persuade an ordinary observer that the designs are not substantially the same, particularly in a field crowded with the alleged prior art?
  • A critical procedural and financial question will be one of enforceability and litigation conduct: Did the patent owner's failure to disclose the foreign patents to the USPTO constitute inequitable conduct, rendering the '675 patent unenforceable, and do the circumstances surrounding the Amazon takedown notices make this an "exceptional case" warranting an award of attorneys' fees?