2:26-cv-02135
Gorillaz LLC v. Xu
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gorillaz, LLC d/b/a CCVOO (Delaware)
- Defendant: Xiangfeng Xu (People's Republic of China); Wenzhou Duoyuan Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Fennemore Craig, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-02135, W.D. Wash., 06/18/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendants submitted allegedly baseless patent infringement complaints to Amazon.com, Inc., which is headquartered in Seattle, and this action caused foreseeable harm to Plaintiff's business interests in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its eyeglass products do not infringe Defendants' design patent, and further that the patent is invalid due to prior public sales and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of "Oprah style" reading glasses, a popular and competitive category in the direct-to-consumer eyewear market.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendants filing a design patent infringement complaint with Amazon against Plaintiff's products, which led to the temporary removal of Plaintiff's listings. The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit is invalid under the on-sale bar because Defendants, and others, sold products embodying the claimed design more than one year prior to the patent's application date. The complaint also includes an allegation of inequitable conduct, asserting that the applicant intentionally withheld this material prior art from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-02-27 | Alleged first use in commerce of "DXYXYO" mark by Defendants. |
| 2021-03-29 | Defendants file U.S. trademark application for "DXYXYO". |
| 2022-06-21 | "Date First Available" for Defendants' allegedly similar DXYXYO product on Amazon. |
| 2022-11-07 | Plaintiff begins selling the Accused Products under the "CCVOO" brand. |
| 2024-07-09 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,107,105 application filed (Priority Date). |
| 2025-12-23 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1107105 issues. |
| 2026-02-16 | Amazon notifies Plaintiff of a design patent infringement complaint filed by Defendants. |
| 2026-06-18 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,107,105 S - "Eyeglasses"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,107,105 S, titled "Eyeglasses," issued on December 23, 2025 (the "''105 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a functional solution to a technical problem. The '105 Patent seeks to protect the novel aesthetic and non-functional design of a pair of eyeglasses Compl. Exhibit 1, p. 23
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for eyeglasses, as shown and described" '105 Patent, claim The design, illustrated in eight figures from various perspectives, features a bold, generally square-shaped frame with thick rims, a prominent saddle-style nose bridge, and thick temple arms that taper toward the earpiece '105 Patent, FIG. 1 '105 Patent, FIG. 3 '105 Patent, FIG. 5 The overall visual impression is that of a modern, oversized style of eyewear.
- Technical Importance: The claimed design is representative of a popular trend in the consumer eyewear market for bold, statement-making frames, which the complaint refers to as "Oprah Style" Compl. ¶30
Key Claims at a Glance
- The '105 Patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in its drawings '105 Patent, claim
- The essential visual elements comprising the claimed design include:
- A bold, generally square-shaped front frame with thick rims.
- A saddle-style nose bridge connecting the lens rims.
- Relatively thick temple arms that are straight along the top edge before tapering downwards at the ear.
- The overall visual impression created by the combination of these features.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are reading glasses sold by Plaintiff Gorillaz, LLC on Amazon.com under its "CCVOO" brand Compl. ¶5 The complaint identifies specific products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) Compl. ¶5
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are reading glasses marketed and sold online, primarily through Amazon Compl. ¶¶19-21 The complaint alleges these products have achieved "great commercial success" Compl. ¶23 The relevant aspect of the products for this case is their ornamental appearance. The complaint includes a screenshot from an Amazon listing showing the Accused Products, which feature a multi-pack of large, square-framed glasses in various colors Compl. ¶20, p. 5 The complaint alleges Plaintiff began selling these products as early as November 7, 2022, nearly two years before the '105 Patent's application date Compl. ¶24
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff (the accused infringer) argues for a finding of non-infringement. The infringement allegations originated in a complaint Defendants filed with Amazon Compl. Exhibit 4, pp. 129-134 The analysis for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially the same as the patented design. The Plaintiff's position is that there is no infringement, or in the alternative, if there were infringement, the patent is invalid Compl. ¶¶65-66
'105 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from '105 Patent) | Alleged Corresponding Feature in Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for eyeglasses, characterized by a bold, squarish frame front with thick rims. | The Defendants' complaint to Amazon alleges that a "side-by-side comparison" shows the Plaintiff's products incorporate "substantially identical" design elements. Images of the accused CCVOO glasses show a similar bold, squarish frame. | ¶20; Ex. 4 p.130 | FIG. 3 |
| The specific contour of the temple arms, which are relatively thick and taper toward the earpiece. | Images of the accused product in the complaint show temple arms with a comparable thickness and shape. | ¶20; Ex. 4 p.130 | FIG. 5 |
| The saddle-style nose bridge connecting the two lens rims. | The accused product's nose bridge appears to have a similar saddle-style construction as that depicted in the patent figures. | ¶20; Ex. 4 p.130 | FIG. 3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Validity over Infringement: The complaint's primary focus is not on disproving visual similarity but on invalidating the '105 Patent. The central argument is that the design was in the public domain long before the patent was filed, primarily through Defendants' own prior sales. The complaint includes a screenshot of Defendants' "DXYXYO" product, first available on Amazon in June 2022, which appears visually similar to the patented design Compl. ¶30, p. 9
- Scope Questions: A key question for the court will be the scope of the '105 Patent's design in light of the alleged prior art. The complaint presents several examples of similar eyeglass designs sold by third parties like Caddis and Warby Parker, in addition to those sold by the Plaintiff and Defendants, prior to the patent's critical date Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶30 The existence of this art, if proven, may significantly narrow the scope of patentable subject matter, potentially limiting the design to only minor variations not present in the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of specific terms is rare. The "claim" is understood to be the design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance to an ordinary observer.
- The Term: The ornamental design for eyeglasses, as shown and described.
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of the claimed design's scope is the central issue. This will not be a debate over words, but a visual comparison. The court will assess the novelty and non-obviousness of the '105 Patent's design against the prior art presented in the complaint. The outcome of this visual comparison will determine both the patent's validity and whether the accused products infringe. Practitioners may focus on identifying the specific visual features that distinguish the patented design from the prior art to define its protectable scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (supporting Patentee): The patentee would likely argue that the overall aesthetic combination of the frame shape, bridge, and temple arms creates a unique visual impression that is distinct from any single prior art reference. They would emphasize the holistic look presented in figures like the perspective view '105 Patent, FIG. 1
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (supporting Accused Infringer): The plaintiff will argue that the alleged prior art products, particularly the "DXYXYO" glasses allegedly sold by Defendants themselves Compl. ¶30, are so similar that the scope of the '105 Patent must be limited to only trivial and minor differences. If the accused CCVOO products do not share these minor differences, they would not infringe a narrowed claim.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not allege willful infringement by the Plaintiff. Instead, it alleges that the Defendants (the patentee) engaged in willful misconduct by asserting the '105 Patent against Plaintiff with knowledge of its invalidity and/or unenforceability Compl. ¶46 This allegation is based on the claim that Defendants sold or controlled the sale of substantially similar products for more than a year before filing the patent application, thereby creating an on-sale bar to patentability Compl. ¶¶31, 37-38
Inequitable Conduct
The complaint explicitly pleads that the '105 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct Compl. ¶¶58, 60 It alleges that the inventor, Defendant Xu, knew that the claimed design had been publicly disclosed and sold prior to the application filing but intentionally failed to disclose this material information to the USPTO with an intent to mislead the agency into granting the patent Compl. ¶¶4, 41, 58
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on the patent's pre-filing history rather than a nuanced debate over design similarity. The key questions for the court will likely be:
A primary question of validity: Does the evidence support the Plaintiff's allegation that products substantially identical to the claimed design-particularly those allegedly sold by the Defendants themselves-were on sale or in public use in the U.S. for more than one year before the patent's July 9, 2024, application date, which would invalidate the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
A critical question of enforceability: Did the patent applicant know of the alleged prior sales and other similar public designs, and if so, was the failure to disclose this information to the USPTO an act of inequitable conduct sufficient to render the patent unenforceable?
A secondary question of infringement: If the patent is deemed both valid and enforceable, would an ordinary observer, viewing the design in the context of the prior art, be deceived into purchasing the Plaintiff's "CCVOO" glasses believing them to be the patented design?