DCT

0:23-cv-61546

Songchao Chen v. Individuals Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Songchao Chen (China)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction Unknown)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jared W. Gasman Attorney, P.A.
  • Case Identification: 0:23-cv-061546, S.D. Fla., 08/10/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and conduct business with consumers in Florida, including offering shipping to the state and accepting payment in U.S. dollars.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of makeup sponge holders infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a holder.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of consumer cosmetic accessories, specifically products designed for the storage of makeup application sponges.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a consolidated action against numerous unidentified e-commerce operators, a strategy often employed to combat alleged widespread online counterfeiting and infringement by anonymous foreign sellers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-04-11 '924 Patent Filing/Priority Date
2023-01-17 '924 Patent Issue Date
2023-08-10 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D975,924 S (“the ’924 Patent”), “MAKEUP SPONGE HOLDER,” issued January 17, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’924 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects the novel, non-functional ornamental characteristics of an article of manufacture (Compl., Ex. 1).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a makeup sponge holder, as shown and described" (’924 Patent, Claim). The key visual features depicted in the patent's drawings include a generally flattened, disc-like body; two parallel, elongated, recessed slots on the front face; and a single vertical slot visible in the side profile (’924 Patent, FIG. 1, 2, 4). The overall impression is that of a sleek, minimalist holder.
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic for a common consumer product in the cosmetics market.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in its seven figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" products identified as the "Makeup Sponge Holder" that allegedly bear "counterfeit versions of the ornamental design of Plaintiff's Patent" (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate numerous e-commerce storefronts to sell the "Infringing Products" to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶40). It further alleges that the Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who may source the products from a common manufacturer and use similar marketing and sales tactics to target U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶26, ¶42, ¶47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused Makeup Sponge Holders infringe the ’924 Patent but does not provide images of the accused products or a detailed feature-by-feature comparison. The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that the Defendants are making, using, or selling products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design for the Makeup Sponge Holder, claimed in the Plaintiff's Patent" (Compl. ¶51).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question: The central factual question for each Defendant will be whether the specific product they sell is, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’924 Patent. Proving this link for each anonymous defendant will be a key evidentiary step.
  • Scope Questions: In design patent litigation, a potential question is whether certain features of the claimed design are primarily functional rather than ornamental. If any features of the ’924 Patent's design were found to be dictated by function (e.g., the slots being necessary for ventilation), a court might exclude those features from the infringement analysis. The complaint does not provide a basis for analyzing this issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents is typically not a central issue, as the drawings themselves constitute the claim. The title of the article of manufacture is the only "term" generally considered.

  • The Term: "makeup sponge holder"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase, found in the patent's title and its single claim, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied (’924 Patent, (54), Claim). The scope of the design patent is limited to this type of article. The construction of this term would only become a central issue if there were a dispute as to whether the accused product is in fact a "makeup sponge holder."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent consistently uses the term in the title, claim, and figure descriptions, providing a clear context for the article of manufacture. The complaint does not suggest any ambiguity regarding this term.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges contributory infringement and inducement, and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶53; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis for these allegations appears to be the claim that the Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" (Compl. ¶47).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having "actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights" and "notice of or knew of Plaintiff's patent" (Compl. ¶39, ¶54). The complaint characterizes the Defendants' alleged conduct as a deliberate disregard for the Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶52).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary linkage: can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that each of the numerous, unidentified Defendants sold products that embody a design substantially the same as the one claimed in the '924 Patent?
  • The core substantive question will be the application of the ordinary observer test: assuming evidence is presented, would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design? This will depend on the overall visual impression created by the accused products compared to the patent's drawings.
  • A significant practical question concerns enforceability: given that the Defendants are alleged to be numerous, anonymous, and operating from foreign jurisdictions, a central challenge for the Plaintiff will be the effective enforcement of any potential injunction or monetary judgment granted by the court.