DCT

1:22-cv-02020

GS Holistic LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: GS Holistic, LLC (Delaware)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdictions unknown, alleged to be primarily People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-02020, N.D. Ill., 04/18/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell hookahs that infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a portion of a hookah.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the consumer products field of hookahs and gravity infusers, where distinctive, brand-identifying aesthetic designs can be a significant market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an anti-counterfeiting action against a network of unidentified online sellers, a common strategy to combat diffuse e-commerce infringement from overseas. The complaint notes that Defendants allegedly operate under multiple aliases to conceal their identities, suggesting that identifying the responsible parties and enforcing any judgment may be a central challenge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-09-02 D'943,817 Patent Application Filing Date
2022-02-15 D'943,817 Patent Issue Date
2022-04-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D943,817, "Hookah," issued February 15, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that in the market for products like hookahs and gravity infusers, there is a commercial need for "distinctive patented designs" that are "broadly recognized by consumers" and associated with a particular brand's quality (Compl. ¶7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a hookah component, not its functional aspects (D'943,817 Patent, CLAIM). The design, depicted in the patent's figures, consists of two vertically-aligned, capsule-shaped glass chambers connected by a central metal collar (D'943,817 Patent, Fig. 1). The patent explicitly disclaims other parts of a complete hookah, such as the base and mouthpiece, by rendering them in broken lines, indicating they do not form part of the claimed design (D'943,817 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's designs, including the patented design, have become "iconic," allowing consumers to instantly recognize genuine "GS Products" (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described" (D'943,817 Patent, CLAIM). The scope of the claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's eight figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are hookahs, referred to as the "Infringing Products," allegedly sold by Defendants through various online storefronts (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate a network of "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" under various "Seller Aliases" to sell the accused hookahs directly to U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶2, ¶11). These online stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to deceive consumers (Compl. ¶14). The complaint includes a table showing the patented design. The complaint includes a table showing several views of the patented design, illustrating a vertically-oriented hookah component with two stacked cylindrical chambers and a central collar (Compl. p. 4). This visual is central to establishing the patented design that is alleged to be infringed. The complaint further alleges that the Defendants are part of an interrelated group of infringers, likely based in China, who use tactics like shared store templates and frequent registration of new seller aliases to evade enforcement (Compl. ¶9, ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory is presented narratively.

D'943,817 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United States products that infringe the '817 Patent (Compl. ¶24). The legal test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused hookahs are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed product" shown in an exhibit (Compl. ¶3) and constitute a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the GS Design" (Compl. p. 13, ¶1(a)). This frames the dispute as a direct application of the ordinary observer test, asserting that the visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the patented design.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused hookahs is substantially the same as the claimed design in the '817 Patent. This comparison will be made from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser of hookahs.
    • Scope Questions: A key issue for the court may be the effect of the broken lines in the patent's figures. The patent specification states that these broken lines "depict portions of the hookah that form no part of the claimed design" (D'943,817 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This raises the question of how the comparison should be made: does the court compare the disclaimed design elements (the two chambers and collar) to the corresponding elements of the accused products in isolation, or does it consider the overall appearance of the accused products as sold, which include features corresponding to the disclaimed parts?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of words is rare; the analysis focuses on the scope of the design as depicted in the drawings. The most critical "term" for construction is the visual scope of the claim itself.

  • The Term: The scope of "the ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The definition of the claimed design is critical because it dictates what features are compared against the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the '817 Patent claims only a portion of a full hookah assembly, disclaiming the rest in broken lines. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the comparison is limited to the claimed portion or considers the overall product context.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the words "for a hookah" imply that the design should be considered in its intended environment, potentially giving some weight to the overall look of the finished product.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides explicit, strong evidence for a narrow interpretation, stating, "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the hookah that form no part of the claimed design" (D'943,817 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This language provides a basis to argue that any features of the accused product corresponding to the disclaimed, broken-line portions of the drawings are irrelevant to the infringement analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. p. 13, ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement or the specific elements of a contributory infringement claim.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants operate as a network of infringers "in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products and use evasive tactics to conceal their operation (Compl. ¶20, ¶17). The complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '817 Patent itself, which issued approximately two months prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products substantially the same as the claimed design from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser, particularly when the '817 patent explicitly disclaims—via broken lines—significant portions of the complete hookah assembly?
  2. The case will also present a significant procedural and enforcement challenge: Can the Plaintiff successfully pierce the network of aliases and international e-commerce platforms to identify the responsible parties, establish personal jurisdiction, and enforce an injunction or monetary judgment against Defendants alleged to be operating from foreign jurisdictions?