Zhong v. Shanghai Jingsun: Design Patent Dispute Ends in Defendant’s Favor

Introduction

In a resolved design patent infringement action before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, plaintiff Binglin Zhong pursued infringement claims against Shanghai Jingsun Technology Co., Ltd. — a Chinese manufacturer commercially known as “Millionhom” — alleging unauthorized use of a patented charge protector design. The case concluded on February 9, 2026, through a consent judgment entered in favor of the defendant, with the court formally finding no direct, indirect, contributory, or induced infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. USD1,008,977.

The resolution carries meaningful implications for design patent litigation strategy, particularly in the growing consumer electronics accessories market, where Chinese manufacturers are frequently named in U.S. patent infringement actions. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams navigating design patent risk, this case offers instructive lessons on consent judgment mechanics, waiver provisions, and the limits of design patent scope.

Primary Keyword: Charge protector design patent infringement
Case Reference: Binglin Zhong v. Shanghai Jingsun Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:25-cv-02973 (N.D. Ill.)

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

At the center of this dispute was U.S. Design Patent No. USD1,008,977 (application number 29/842,973), which covers the ornamental design of a charge protector. Design patents protect the unique visual characteristics of a product rather than its functional attributes — a distinction that proved central to the case’s resolution. The accused products were identified in Exhibit C to the original complaint (Dkt. No. 1-3 at 6).

Legal Representation:

• • Plaintiff: Attorneys Hongchang Deng and Robert Michael Dewitty of Dewitty and Associates, Chtd.
• • Defendant: Attorneys Shaoyi Che, Thomas John Nitschke, and Yuanzhou Wu, representing Dragonfly Law Group, P.C., Khan & Wu, LLP, and YoungZeal LLP

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The complaint was filed on March 20, 2025, in the Northern District of Illinois, a well-established venue for intellectual property matters and an appropriate forum given jurisdictional connections to Millionhom’s U.S. commercial activity. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, a senior and highly experienced jurist on the Northern District bench with a substantial IP litigation docket.

The matter closed on February 9, 2026, reflecting a total duration of approximately 326 days from filing to resolution. This timeline — under eleven months — represents a moderately swift resolution for a design patent infringement action at the district court level, suggesting the parties reached settlement posture relatively early in the discovery or pre-trial phase.

No trial was held. The case resolved at the first instance (district court) level via consent judgment, bypassing motion practice through summary judgment and eliminating appellate risk for both parties. This procedural pathway is increasingly favored in design patent disputes where claim scope uncertainty makes litigation outcomes unpredictable for both plaintiffs and defendants.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On February 9, 2026, the Northern District of Illinois entered a consent judgment in favor of Defendant Shanghai Jingsun Technology Co., Ltd. The court formally adjudicated and decreed:

• • No direct infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. USD1,008,977
• • No indirect, contributory, or induced infringement by any means
• • The accused charge protector products do not embody the patented design
• • Each party bears its own costs and attorney fees — no fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285

Critically, the consent judgment includes no damages award and no injunctive relief, representing a complete defense victory on the merits as presented in the judgment order (Dkt. No. 57).

Verdict Cause Analysis

The consent judgment’s language mirrors a negotiated resolution that formally vindicates the defendant’s non-infringement position. Several legally significant provisions merit close attention:

• • Plaintiff’s Waiver: Plaintiff Zhong waived all infringement claims against the defendant that could have been raised in this action — a broad waiver that precludes future assertion of the ‘977 Patent against Millionhom’s accused products.
• • Defendant’s Counterclaim Waiver: The defendant, in exchange, waived its invalidity and unenforceability counterclaims, which were dismissed with prejudice. This mutual waiver architecture reflects a balanced negotiated outcome rather than a capitulation by either side.
• • Non-Estoppel Provision (Critical Clause): Paragraph 8 of the consent judgment explicitly states that the judgment “shall not be conclusive for purposes of collateral estoppel regarding the accused products’ non-infringement.” This carve-out is strategically significant — it preserves the defendant’s ability to relitigate non-infringement in future proceedings if circumstances change, while also limiting the judgment’s preclusive effect on third parties or future plaintiffs.

Legal Significance

This case exemplifies the increasing complexity of design patent enforcement in the consumer electronics accessories market. Design patents covering charge protectors and similar accessories occupy a claim scope that courts scrutinize carefully under the ordinary observer test established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), which asks whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing an accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The defendant’s assembly of three law firms — Dragonfly Law Group, Khan & Wu, and YoungZeal LLP — suggests a defense strategy leveraging both Chinese-market familiarity and U.S. patent litigation expertise, a trend likely to grow as Chinese manufacturers face increasing U.S. IP enforcement actions.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Zhong v. Shanghai Jingsun dispute reflects a broader litigation pattern: individual U.S. patent holders and small entities asserting design patents against Chinese e-commerce manufacturers selling through platforms like Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, and direct-to-consumer channels. The “Millionhom” trade name suggests a consumer-facing brand presence that made the defendant a concrete enforcement target.

The case’s swift resolution through consent judgment — without injunctive relief or monetary damages — underscores a market reality: design patent assertions in the consumer accessories space frequently resolve through negotiated outcomes that balance litigation cost against uncertain claim scope verdicts. Neither party expended resources through full discovery or summary judgment briefing.

For companies operating in the charging accessories, cable management, and consumer electronics peripherals sectors, this case signals that well-resourced defense teams leveraging both domestic and internationally experienced counsel can achieve complete defense victories even against formally-registered design patents. Licensing negotiations in this space should account for the realistic possibility of consent judgments without damages as a litigation endgame.