Shenzhen Xinchangtu Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xinchangtu Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China, on information and belief)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Avek IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 5:26-cv-01682, W.D. Tex., 03/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants target business activities toward U.S. consumers, including residents of the Western District of Texas, through interactive e-commerce stores, offering to ship products to the district and accepting payment in U.S. dollars.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' online stores sell "grape cutter products" that infringe the ornamental design claimed in a single U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute involves a common kitchen utensil designed to safely slice small fruits like grapes, primarily marketed to parents of young children to reduce choking hazards.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "swarm" lawsuit, targeting numerous unidentified online sellers in a single action. It preemptively argues for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299, alleging the defendants' products are identical and that their conduct arises from the same series of transactions, suggesting a coordinated effort to infringe.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,007,996 - "Grape Cutter"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,007,996, "Grape Cutter," issued December 19, 2023 (the "'996 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that products embodying the patented design are useful for parents seeking to cut small fruits and vegetables into smaller pieces to mitigate choking risks for infants Compl. ¶12
• The Patented Solution: The '996 Patent claims the unique, ornamental appearance of a grape cutter, not its functional aspects Compl. ¶3 The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a cylindrical head containing the cutting mechanism, which transitions into a curved, ergonomic handle with a distinct profile '996 Patent, FIG. 1 '996 Patent, FIG. 5 The overall visual impression is that of a modern, handheld kitchen tool. The complaint includes a representative figure from the patent to illustrate the claimed design Compl. p. 5
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique design" is a key reason for the product's appeal to consumers Compl. ¶12

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a grape cutter, as shown and described" '996 Patent, Claim
• The claim protects the overall visual appearance of the grape cutter as depicted in the patent's eight figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "grape cutter products" (the "Infringing Products") sold by numerous online sellers through various e-commerce stores Compl. ¶3

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are alleged to be grape cutters used for slicing small fruits and vegetables Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶12
• The complaint alleges that the Defendants are a "swarm of foreign counterfeiters" operating through anonymous online stores to target U.S. consumers Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶18 It further alleges that the Infringing Products are "identical in all respects," suggesting a common source or coordinated manufacturing and distribution effort among the named Defendants Compl. ¶8

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "claim charts depicting each of Defendants' respective Infringing Products as compared to the design claimed by the '996 Patent" in an attached Schedule A-1 Compl. ¶33 As this schedule was not provided, a summary of the narrative infringement theory is presented below.

The central allegation is that the Defendants make, use, sell, or import products whose ornamental design is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '996 Patent Compl. ¶33 The legal test for infringement of a design patent is whether, in the eye of an "ordinary observer," the resemblance between the patented design and the accused design is such as to deceive such an observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The complaint asserts that the accused products are "identical," which, if proven, would meet this standard Compl. ¶8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: A primary question will be whether the accused products and the claimed design are "substantially the same" from the perspective of an ordinary observer. While the complaint alleges the products are identical, this is a factual allegation that Defendants may contest, potentially raising arguments about minor differences in shape, proportion, or surface ornamentation.
  • Evidence of Identity: The court may scrutinize the evidence presented to support the claim that products from dozens of distinct online storefronts are, in fact, identical and arise from the same transaction or occurrence, as this is the basis for joining the numerous defendants in a single action Compl. ¶¶6-9

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms. In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is rare, as the single claim consists of the drawings themselves. The analysis typically focuses on comparing the overall visual appearance of the accused product with the patented design as a whole, rather than construing specific verbal terms. The central legal question is not the definition of a term but the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement. It uses broad language alleging Defendants "directly and/or indirectly infringe," but the sole count is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶¶30-38
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offering for sale, selling, and importing infringing products Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶31 The complaint further alleges the existence of a sophisticated "ecosystem" where foreign sellers use online resources, such as the website sellerdefense.cn, to monitor U.S. intellectual property litigation and employ tactics to evade enforcement Compl. ¶¶22-25 A screenshot provided from this website depicts a running list of intellectual property lawsuits filed in the U.S. Compl. ¶25 Plaintiff may argue that participation in or awareness of this ecosystem demonstrates knowledge of the patent and a deliberate intent to infringe.

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

• Procedural Viability: A threshold issue will be procedural: can the plaintiff successfully join a large group of allegedly anonymous foreign e-commerce operators in a single action under 35 U.S.C. § 299? The case may depend on whether the court is convinced by the allegations that the "Infringing Products are the identical in all respects" and that the defendants' operations are so logically related as to constitute the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences."
• Substantive Infringement: The core substantive question is one of visual identity: does the ornamental design of the accused grape cutters create the same overall visual impression as the design claimed in the '996 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The outcome will rely on a direct visual comparison of the products against the patent's drawings.
• Enforcement and Damages: A critical practical question will be one of remedy: assuming the plaintiff prevails, can it obtain effective injunctive relief and recover damages from numerous, potentially transient foreign entities operating through third-party online platforms? The complaint's allegations regarding Defendants' use of fictitious names and tactics to conceal their identities highlight the practical enforcement challenges central to this type of litigation Compl. ¶19