Feng v. Kitsure-BJT, No. 25 CV 9209, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2026) (Shah, J.).
Judge Shah denied Defendant Kitsure-BJT’s Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this design patent infringement case involving sink caddy products sold on Amazon.
Plaintiff Liu Feng, a Chinese limited company, owns U.S. Design Patent No. 1,038,566 for “[t]he ornamental design for a sink caddy,” registered August 6, 2024. Feng alleged that Kitsure-BJT’s competing sink caddy product infringes its patent. Kitsure moved to dismiss, arguing that the products were “plainly dissimilar” as a matter of law, primarily pointing to its product’s “bidirectional grid of perpendicular bars” creating a “fundamentally” different visual impression.
Applying the “ordinary observer” test from Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871), the Court construed the claim to cover the ornamental design for a sink caddy and then assessed whether the accused design was “plainly dissimilar.” Citing Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Court emphasized that where distinguishable components have a functional aspect, they must be excluded from the infringement comparison. The Court found it “equally plausible” at the pleading stage that Kitsure’s structural differences—the perpendicular bars—serve a functional purpose (to better secure items in the caddy) rather than creating a distinct ornamental impression.
The Court distinguished the Defendant’s cited authorities—High Point Design LLC v. Buyer’s Direct, Inc., 621 Fed. App’x 632 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and North Star Technology International v. Latham Pool Products, 676 F.Supp.3d 579 (E.D. Tenn. 2023)—noting both involved summary judgment with developed records, not motion to dismiss. The Court concluded that at the pleading stage, without formal claim construction and without giving Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to articulate the design features of its patented claim, the accused product and asserted design patent are “not plainly dissimilar.”
For design patent defendants, this opinion confirms that the “plainly dissimilar” standard is a high bar to clear at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, particularly where differences between products may be functional rather than ornamental.