Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., LTD. v. the Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex a, 25-1617

Shenzhen owns Design Patent No. D886,982 for a foldable fan and sued Schedule A e-commerce sellers for alleged infringement. 1
The district court granted Shenzhen an ex parte TRO and later converted it into a preliminary injunction against Zhouty after finding the accused design substantially similar to the ’982 patent. 2
After briefing, the PTO issued later Design Patent No. D1,046,104 to a third party, covering a foldable fan and listing the ’982 patent as prior art. 3
Zhouty sought reconsideration, arguing the ’104 patent’s issuance showed a patentable difference undermining Shenzhen’s likelihood of success. 4
Shenzhen then sought a TRO against newly added defendants, who made the same ’104-patent argument, and the district court denied relief and dissolved the PI against Zhouty. 5
The Federal Circuit affirmed over a dissent, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the later-issued patent when assessing preliminary injunctive relief. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral estoppel barred renewed ’104-patent arguments? 7	Shenzhen: district court already rejected the argument on reconsideration.	Zhouty/New Defendants: court could revisit its own nonfinal injunction ruling.	No; collateral estoppel does not bar reconsideration within the same ongoing case. 8
Did the district court misapply design-patent infringement law in denying PI/TRO? 9	Shenzhen: court wrongly treated the later ’104 patent as proof it could not prevail.	Zhouty/New Defendants: issuance of the ’104 patent suggested the accused products differed from the ’982 design.	No; the court permissibly used the later-issued patent as part of its likelihood-of-success analysis. 10

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction requires likely success on the merits 11)
e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Technologies, Inc., 772 F.3d 723 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (regional-circuit law governs collateral estoppel review 12)
Williams v. Commissioner, 1 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1993) (no collateral estoppel bar to reconsidering an earlier ruling in the same case 13)
In re Hovis, 356 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2004) (collateral estoppel has no role within a unitary, ongoing proceeding 14)
Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Federal Circuit gives dominant effect to patent-precedent in preliminary injunction appeals 15)
Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1871) (ordinary-observer test for design patent infringement 16)
International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (for design patents, anticipation and infringement use the same test 17)
Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co., 129 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1889) (what infringes later would anticipate if earlier 18)
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (issued patents carry a presumption of validity 19)