QIAN v. AiYaYa - Complaint
QIAN v. AiYaYa - Complaint
XIAOYAN QIAN,
v.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Xiaoyan Qian (“Plaintiff”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files
this Complaint against the entities identified on Schedule A hereto (collectively, “Defendants”).
Temu.com, and Walmart.com (collectively, the “Seller IDs”), have infringed, and continue to
infringe, on Plaintiff’s United States Patent No. D984,596 (the “Asserted Patent” or “Plaintiff’s
Patented Design”) by manufacturing, distributing, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling
encapsulated the patented design in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (the “Infringing Products”).
Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ infringement of her Patented Design,
as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing the Infringing Products over the
Internet. Plaintiff has been and continues to be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ infringement of
Plaintiff’s Patented Design and, therefore, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt such infringement
and irreparable harm. Plaintiff also seeks monetary relief for the injury she has sustained and is
1
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 2 of 24
1. Xiaoyan Qian is an individual residing in China who owns at least one design patent
registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, one of which is asserted in this
case (the “Asserted Patent” or “Plaintiff’s Patented Design”). A copy of the Asserted Patent is
attached as Exhibit 1.
2. On April 25, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issues United States Patent No. D984,596, entitled “FAUCET DRIP CATCHER” to Xiaoyan
Qian.
3. Plaintiff is the named assignee of, owns all right, title and interest in, and has
4. After obtaining the registration for the Patented Design, Ms. Qian conducted an
internet inquiry and discovered that the Defendants were selling products that embodied the
licensed products. The Infringing Products threaten to destroy Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill
and cause significant harm to Plaintiff’s business, for which there is no adequate remedy because
6. On information and belief, Defendants’ infringing activities of offering for sale and
selling Infringing Products arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions.
distribute and sell Infringing Products to United States consumers. Further, Defendants, on
information and belief, are working together to manufacture, arrange the manufacture of and/or
2
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 3 of 24
sell and otherwise distribute the Infringing Products. Moreover, the Infringing Products and their
7. Plaintiff therefore brings this action for federal patent infringement pursuant to 35
8. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action
pursuant to the provisions of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a),
1331.
9. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the State in
which the Court sits to the extent authorized by the state's laws. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Pennsylvania
authorizes personal jurisdiction over each Defendant pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.§ 5322 (a)
which provides in pertinent part: “A tribunal of this Commonwealth may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a person ... as to a cause of action or other matter arising from such person: (1)
Transacting any business in this Commonwealth. Without excluding other acts which may
constitute transacting business for the purpose of this paragraph: (ii) The doing of a single act in
this Commonwealth for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit ... (3) Causing harm or
tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth. (4) Causing harm or tortious injury
by an act or omission outside this Commonwealth ... (10) Committing any violation within the
jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of any statute, home rule charter, local ordinance or resolution,
or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder by any government unit or of any order of court or
other government unit.” In the alternative, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k) confers personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants because, upon information and belief, Defendants regularly
conduct, transact and/or solicit business in Pennsylvania and in this judicial district, and/or derive
3
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 4 of 24
substantial revenue from their business transactions in Pennsylvania and in this judicial district
and/or otherwise avail themselves of the privileges and protections of the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania such that this Court's assertion of jurisdiction over Defendants
does not offend traditional notions of fair play and due process, and/or Defendants’ illegal
infringing actions caused injury to Plaintiff in Pennsylvania and in this judicial district such that
Defendants should reasonably expect such actions to have consequences in Pennsylvania and in
under the Seller IDs, as well as any and all as yet undiscovered accounts
Products and to place orders for, receive invoices for and purchase
Pennsylvania.
4
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 5 of 24
agents, servants and all persons in active concert of participation with any
market, promote, distribute, offer for sale and/or otherwise deal in products,
sales to consumers all over the world, including repeat sales to consumers
Dollars, collect and pay Pennsylvania sales tax, and offer shipping to the
5
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 6 of 24
harm to Plaintiff and the consuming public by (i) depriving Plaintiff of its
right to fairly compete for space within the various on-line marketplace
various on-line marketplaces and/or diluting and driving down the retail
market price for the (ii) causing an overall degradation of the value of the
goodwill associated with Plaintiff’s works and goods; and (iii) increasing
Plaintiff’s overall cost to market its goods and educate consumers about its
h. Upon information and belief, many Defendants likely reside and/or operate
in and/or purchase the illegal goods from foreign jurisdictions with lax
and are aware that their illegal infringing actions alleged herein are likely
Pennsylvania.
9. For the reasons stated above, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391, and this Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants. In short, each
of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in Pennsylvania via offering for sale and/or sale of
6
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 7 of 24
their infringing goods through the Seller IDs, is engaging in interstate commerce, and has
THE PARTIES
11. Ms. Qian owns and operates a successful business selling, among other items, her
patented faucet mat. Ms. Qian’s business conducts substantial commercial operations including
licensing of intellectual property rights. Ms. Qian is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in
several patented designs which have been registered with the U.S. Patent Office, including the
Asserted Patent.
12. Among the exclusive rights granted to Plaintiff under the Patent Act are the
exclusive rights to manufacture, distribute, import, offer for sale, and/or sell goods encapsulated
13. Plaintiff plans to expand the manufacturing and sales of products embodying her
patented designs, including the Patented Design asserted in this case. Plaintiff also licenses her
patent to other manufacturers who will be using the designs on various products.
14. Plaintiff’s Products are known for their distinctive patented designs. These designs
are broadly recognized by consumers and are highly sought after kitchen products. Kitchen
products styled after these designs are associated with the quality and innovation that the public
has come to expect from Plaintiff’s Products. Plaintiff uses these designs in connection with its
Products, including, but not limited to, the designs shown in the below table and in Exhibit 1.
Plaintiff’s Products, including those which embody the Plaintiff’s Patented Design, are marked in
7
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 8 of 24
Patent
Claim Issue Date
Number
D984,596 Apr, 25, 2023
15. Plaintiff has spent substantial time and money advertising her goods and plans to
continue expanding her advertising and promotion of genuine goods embodying the Patented
Design by authorized distributors and third parties via the Internet. Over the past several years,
visibility on the Internet, particularly via e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, eBay, TikTok,
Temu, Wish, and Walmart, and others, (“Third Party Platforms”), has become increasingly
important to Plaintiff’s overall marketing. Thus, Plaintiff and her authorized distributors will be
8
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 9 of 24
optimization (“SEO”) strategies. Those strategies allow Plaintiff and her authorized retailers to
educate consumers fairly and legitimately about the value associated with genuine Plaintiff’s
products. Similarly, Defendants’ individual Seller IDs are indexed on the Third Party Platforms
and compete directly with Plaintiff for space in the search results, resulting in a flooding of the
market with Infringing Products and irreparably harming Plaintiff and her business.
The Defendants
16. Defendants are individuals and business entities who, upon information and belief,
reside and/or operate the Seller IDs in the People’s Republic of China and other foreign
jurisdictions or redistribute products from the same or similar sources in those locations.
Defendants have the capacity to be sued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b).
Defendants conduct business or assist in business conducted throughout the United States
(including within the State of Pennsylvania and this Judicial District) through the manufacturing,
online advertising and offering for sale, and importation and distribution of products that embody
business conducted, throughout the United States (including within the State of Pennsylvania and
this Judicial District) through the public display, online advertising and selling, and importation
and distribution, of items that incorporate infringing versions of Plaintiff’s Patented Design.
17. The Seller IDs share unique identifiers establishing a logical relationship between
them and reflecting that Defendants’ illegal operation arises out of the same transaction,
to great lengths to conceal both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their
sophisticated illegal operation, including changing the names of their stores multiple times,
9
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 10 of 24
opening new stores, helping their friends open stores, and making subtle changes to their products
and listings.
18. On information and belief, Defendants create their online Seller IDs and advertise
what appear to be genuine versions of Plaintiff’s patented products, without any permission or
19. Defendants appear to be an interrelated group of infringers, who create the Seller
IDs on various third-party online platforms and design these stores to appear to sell genuine
versions of Plaintiff's Products, while they actually sell inferior infringing imitations of Plaintiff's
Products. The Seller IDs share unique identifiers, such as common design elements, the same or
similar Infringing Products they offer for sale, product descriptions, shopping cart platforms, and
accepted payment methods. They also use the same or similar check-out methods, absent or fake
contact information, identically priced or similarly priced Infringing Products and volume sales
discounts. These numerous similarities establish a logical relationship between Defendants and
show the likelihood that their illegal operations arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
These tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities, and the full scope of their illegal
operation, make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to learn the precise scope and the exact
interworking of their illegal network. Should Defendants provide additional credible information
regarding their identities, which they are required to present as part of their defense, Plaintiff will
20. The success of online sales of products to the United States has resulted in
investigates suspicious e-commerce stores identified in proactive Internet sweeps. Plaintiff has
10
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 11 of 24
identified hundreds of fully interactive e-commerce stores, including the Seller IDs, offering for
sale and/or selling Infringing Products to consumers in this Judicial District and throughout the
United States. These Infringing Products are faucet drip catchers that closely mimic the design
patented by Plaintiff, including the same overall shape, dimensions, and aesthetic features.
Specifically, the infringing products have a curved basin designed to fit around a faucet, with a
similar lip and drainage system as described in Plaintiff's patent. Based on Plaintiff's investigation,
Defendants have sold countless varying types of these Infringing Products, with an unknown total
retail value. The Infringing Products have been distributed to customers across the U.S., severely
21. Defendants operate at least the Seller IDs identified in Schedule A and engage in
the unauthorized reproduction, public display, and distribution of goods embodying Plaintiff’s
22. Defendants’ sale, distribution, and advertising of Infringing Products are highly
likely to cause consumers to believe that Defendants are offering and selling authorized products
when in fact they are not. The Infringing Products are faucet drip catchers that infringe Plaintiff’s
Patented Design including the curved basin design, which precisely matches the patented shape
with its specific curvature and dimensionality, the lip configuration, which directly copies the
unique drainage system as described in the patent drawings, the overall aesthetic features,
including the exact proportional relationships and surface contours that distinguish the original
design. See Exhibit 1. Images of the Seller IDs’ Infringing Products demonstrate a verbatim
reproduction of these specific patented design elements, causing consumer confusion and market
harm. To illustrate, below are several examples using three of the Seller IDs included in Schedule
11
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 12 of 24
A attached hereto (DIGIBLUESKY, Palksky Store, Qulable) which show that the Infringing
12
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 13 of 24
embodying Plaintiff’s Patented Design is irreparably harming Plaintiff and her business.
25. According to an intellectual property rights seizures statistics report issued by the
United States Department of Homeland Security, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price
(“MSRP”) of goods seized by the U.S. government in fiscal year 2023 was over $2.7 billion. (See
Exhibit 3 at 2). Internet websites like the Seller IDs are also estimated to contribute to tens of
thousands of lost jobs for legitimate businesses and broader economic damages such as lost tax
26. E-commerce retail platforms such as those used by Defendants do not subject new
sellers to verification and confirmation of their addresses and identities, thus allowing infringers
to extensively use false names and addresses when registering with these e-commerce retail
13
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 14 of 24
27. As stated above, Defendants employ and benefit from substantially similar
advertising and marketing strategies. Defendants facilitate sales by designing Seller IDs so that
they appear to unknowing consumers to be authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers.
Online internet stores like the Seller IDs appear sophisticated and accept payment in U.S. dollars
via credit cards, Amazon Pay, Western Union, PayPal, and other reputable payment platforms.
Online internet stores like the Seller IDs often include content and images that make it exceedingly
difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer. Plaintiff has not
licensed or authorized any of the Defendants to manufacture, distribute, import, offer for sale,
and/or sell goods embodying Plaintiff’s Patented Design, and none of the Defendants are
28. Upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in fraudulent conduct when
registering the Seller IDs by providing false, misleading, and/or incomplete information to e-
commerce platforms. Upon information and belief, certain Defendants have anonymously
registered and maintained aliases to prevent discovery of their true identities and the scope of their
e-commerce operation.
29. Upon information and belief, Defendants regularly register or acquire new seller
aliases for the purpose of offering for sale and selling Infringing Products on e-commerce
platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, Wish, Walmart, and other Third Party Platforms. Such
seller alias registration patterns are one of many common tactics used by Defendants to conceal
their identities and the full scope and interworking of their illegal operation, and to avoid being
shut down.
14
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 15 of 24
30. Upon information and belief, each Defendant operates more than one merchant
storefront.
31. Upon information and belief, each Defendant operates merchant storefronts across
32. Upon information and belief, each Defendant has sold more than 150,000 units of
33. Upon information and belief, each Defendant’s profits from the sale of the
34. Upon information and belief, each Defendant’s profits from the sale of the
35. Upon information and belief, each Defendant’s profits from the sale of the
JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS
36. As stated above, on information and belief, Defendants often operate under multiple
fictitious aliases, and unauthorized on-line retailers such as the Seller IDs often share unique
identifiers, such as templates with common design elements that intentionally omit any contact
information or other identifying information and likewise omit other seller aliases that they use.
Further, such unauthorized retailers include other notable common features on their internet stores
such as use of the same registration patterns, accepted payment methods, check-out methods,
keywords, similarities in price and quantities, and/or the use of the same text and stock images or
artificially produced images. The Infringing Products offered for sale by unauthorized retailers
such as the Seller IDs often bear irregularities and indicia of being unauthorized that are similar to
15
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 16 of 24
one another, suggesting that the Infringing Products were manufactured by and come from a
37. On information and belief, groups of infringers such as Defendants here are
typically in communication with each other. They regularly participate in WeChat chat rooms, and
communicate through websites such as sellerdefense.cn and kuajingvs.com, where they discuss
tactics for operating multiple accounts, evading detection, pending litigation, and new lawsuits.
See Exhibit 5. Infringers such as Defendants commonly operate under multiple seller aliases and
payment accounts so that they can continue operation despite enforcement efforts. Analysis of
financial account transaction logs from previous similar cases indicates that offshore infringers
regularly move funds from U.S.-based financial accounts to offshore accounts outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. and this Court. Further analysis of similar cases shows that defendants
often sweep their accounts in case their infringing activities are detected, and their accounts are
frozen, at which time defendants will attempt to settle for lesser amounts to regain access to the
remaining funds or abandon their stores altogether and start fresh with a new alias.
38. Here, on information and belief, Defendants maintain offshore bank accounts and
regularly move funds from their financial accounts that are associated with the activity complained
of herein to such offshore accounts based outside of the jurisdiction of this Court. On information
and belief, Defendants undertake such activity in an attempt to avoid payment of any monetary
judgment awarded based on their infringement of intellectual property rights. Defendants appear
to be an interrelated group of infringers, who create numerous Seller IDs and design these stores
to appear to be selling genuine versions of Plaintiff’s Products, while they are actually selling
inferior, unauthorized imitations of Plaintiff’s Products. The Seller IDs share unique identifiers,
such as the following: common design elements, the same or similar infringing products that they
16
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 17 of 24
offer for sale, similar infringing product descriptions, the same or substantially similar shopping
cart platforms, the same accepted payment methods, the same check-out methods, the same dearth
of contact information, and identically or similarly priced infringing products and volume sales
discounts. The foregoing similarities establish a logical relationship between them and suggest that
Defendants’ illegal operations arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences.
39. These tactics used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of
their infringing operations make it almost impossible for Plaintiff to learn the precise scope and
the exact interworking of their illegal network. In the event that Defendants provide additional
credible information regarding their identities, Plaintiff will take appropriate steps to amend the
Complaint.
COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT NO. D984,596
(35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
48. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set
49. Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United States
50. In the eye of an ordinary observer, the design of Defendants’ Infringing Products
and the designs claimed in the Plaintiff patent are substantially the same. Said sameness deceives
prospective purchasers and induces them to purchase Defendants’ products supposing them to
of the Patented Design's unique structural elements. Defendants are engaged in unauthorized
manufacturing of products using identical design specifications, marketing and selling products
17
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 18 of 24
that are substantially indistinguishable from the Patented Design, thereby exploiting the distinctive
specifically involves copying the exact curved basin configuration, replicating the precise lip and
drainage system, and reproducing the distinctive aesthetic and functional design elements without
authorization.
52. Defendants’ Infringing Products misappropriate the novelty of the designs claimed
in the Plaintiff patent that distinguished Plaintiff’s patented designs from the prior art.
53. Defendants sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United States for subsequent
sale or use products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental designs claimed in the
Plaintiff patent. No licensing agreements exist between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the
patent at issue. Defendants have infringed the Plaintiff patent through the acts complained of herein
54. Defendants have had constructive notice of Plaintiff’s rights in the Patent because
the Patent is marked on products embodying the patented design and/or their packaging with the
56. Defendants’ infringement of Patent has caused Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm
resulting from the loss of its lawful rights under U.S. patent law to exclude others from making,
using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the designs claimed in the Patent.
Defendants’ infringement of the Patent, including Defendants’ profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289.
18
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 19 of 24
U.S.C. § 284, including enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or assessed, due to
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and entry of an Order
(1) Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, confederates, and
all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert or participation with them be
permanently enjoined and restrained from the following activities, as Plaintiff has demonstrated
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to
compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and
defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved
by a permanent injunction:
(a) making, using, importing, offering for sale, and selling any product not
do the same;
19
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 20 of 24
(2) Directing that Defendants deliver for destruction all products not authorized by
Plaintiff that include any reproduction, copy, or colorable imitation of Plaintiff’s Patented Design.
(3) Entering an Order that all banks, savings and loan associations, other financial
institutions, payment processors, on-line marketplaces, and other third-parties who are in active
concert or participation with Defendants, shall, within two (2) business days of receipt of an Order
(b) Restrain and enjoin such accounts from transferring or disposing of any
(c) Transfer to Plaintiff all funds restrained in such accounts up to the amount
of any monetary relief awarded to Plaintiff by this Court within ten (10)
(4) Entering an Order that, until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed
to it by Defendants, in the event that any new financial accounts controlled or operated by
Defendants are identified, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to direct any banks, savings
and loan associations, other financial institutions, payment processors, and on-line marketplaces,
with whom such newly identified accounts are maintained, to carry out the following activity:
(b) Restrain and enjoin such accounts from transferring or disposing of any
(c) Transfer any funds restrained in such accounts to Plaintiff within ten (10)
20
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 21 of 24
(5) Awarding Plaintiff such damages as it may prove at trial that are adequate to
compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiff’s Patented Design, including but
not limited to lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty, and awarding Plaintiff all of the profits
Defendants’ unauthorized use and infringement of the Patented Design, in accordance with 35
(6) Alternatively, should the Court not award Plaintiff statutory damages, that
Defendants be ordered to pay to Plaintiff all actual damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of
Defendants’ infringement, said amount to be determined at trial; and that Defendants account for
and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendants by reason of Defendants’ infringement of
Plaintiff’s Patented Design as complained of herein, to the extent not already accounted for in the
(7) Awarding Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
285; and
(8) Awarding Plaintiff any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
21
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 22 of 24
Schedule A
22
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 23 of 24
23
Case 2:25-cv-00184-RJC Document 1 Filed 02/12/25 Page 24 of 24
24