This case was heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, focusing on disputes over U.S. design patent infringement of foldable portable cooling fans, a typical intellectual property lawsuit frequently brought against cross-border merchants operating on Amazon and Temu. As requested, all real enterprise names are replaced with pseudonyms: the patent owner is Aurora Innovation Limited, and the defendant is Horizon Global Trading Inc. The case clarifies the application of the ordinary observer test for design patents and addresses the common defence strategy of partial appearance modification, providing critical practical references for Chinese manufacturers supplying commodities to the U.S. market.
Aurora Innovation Limited is a product design and sales enterprise. The company submitted an application for a U.S. design patent for a foldable mini portable fan in June 2022 and obtained formal authorization (USD886,982S) from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in March 2023. The enterprise continuously paid maintenance fees to sustain patent validity and retained original hand-drawn sketches, 3D modeling source files, mould opening records and pre-launch marketing materials to prove independent design. The patented product features an integrated foldable bracket and streamlined outer casing, targeting outdoor and office consumer groups. The product achieved stable sales on North American e-commerce platforms and formed fixed consumer recognition.
In February 2025, Aurora Innovation’s market monitoring team found that Horizon Global Trading Inc. launched multiple fan products on mainstream U.S. shopping platforms. After physical purchase and comparative appraisal, the overall outline, folding structure and external contour of the accused product were highly consistent with the protected design. Horizon Global Trading made minor adjustments including slight changes to the grille shape and color matching. The defendant argued that these modifications created visual differences and the product avoided patent infringement risks. The defendant imported large quantities of similar products from Asian manufacturers and adopted low-price sales strategies to seize market share occupied by the patented goods.
The patentee first entrusted a U.S. intellectual property law firm to issue a cease-and-desist letter, requiring the defendant to remove all commodity listings, stop importation and sales of infringing products, and negotiate compensation for economic losses. Horizon Global Trading put forward two core defences. First, the company claimed it purchased goods from an anonymous overseas manufacturer and belonged to an innocent importer without awareness of patent rights. Second, the defendant maintained that adjusted surface components formed a new independent appearance design, and overall similarity could not be established under U.S. patent rules.
After settlement negotiations completely failed, Aurora Innovation filed a formal civil lawsuit and applied to the court for an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO). The plaintiff requested the court to enjoin the defendant from selling and importing infringing fans, freeze relevant store fund accounts, order permanent removal of online product links, and compensate lost profits plus reasonable attorney fees, notarization costs and testing fees.
During judicial trial, the core controversy centered on whether the accused design was substantially similar from the perspective of an ordinary consumer. The judge applied the landmark ordinary observer test established by U.S. Federal Circuit precedents. Under this standard, courts focus on the overall visual impression obtained by general buyers rather than trivial partial differences. Technical comparison evidence demonstrated that all ornamental features forming the core visual attraction remained unchanged. Partial grille adjustment belongs to minor peripheral modification and cannot break the overall similar visual impression. Therefore, the accused product fell within the protection scope of the disputed design patent.
The court further reviewed the innocent importer defence raised by Horizon Global Trading. According to U.S. patent jurisprudence, importers engaged in repeated commodity transactions bear a higher obligation to conduct IP clearance before mass import. The defendant failed to provide formal design authorization documents, supplier design certification and prior patent search reports. The judge ruled that the defendant did not perform reasonable intellectual property risk review, and the innocent importer defence could not be supported.
In August 2025, the district court issued a judgment. The court confirmed that Horizon Global Trading Inc. committed willful infringement of the U.S. design patent. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from manufacturing, importing, offering for sale and selling infringing foldable fans. The defendant was ordered to pay total compensation of USD 118,300, covering patentee’s lost profits and all reasonable rights-protection expenses. The defendant chose not to file an appeal to the Federal Circuit, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
This case delivers profound lessons for cross-border suppliers. First, partial superficial appearance adjustments cannot circumvent design patent protection; only substantial alteration of core visual features can effectively avoid infringement. Second, overseas importers cannot rely on incomplete procurement records to achieve exemption. Mass importers must carry out patent freedom-to-operate searches before launching new items. Third, enterprises holding U.S. design patents should preserve complete original design archives, which serve as decisive evidence in federal court litigation. For Chinese OEM factories exporting consumer electronics to North America, standardized patent risk assessment before product development can effectively prevent large-scale cross-border patent litigation.
1. United States Patent and Trademark Office Official Website: https://www.uspto.gov
2. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Official Case Inquiry Portal: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov
3. Justia U.S. Federal Patent Case Database: https://law.justia.com/patents/
4. WIPO Lex United States Patent Act Full Text: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/17489
