DCT

1:22-cv-02781

GS Holistic LLC v. Bairuier Technology Shenzhen Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-02781, N.D. Ill., 05/26/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that each defendant targets business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are selling hookahs that infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The case involves the ornamental design of consumer products, specifically hookahs and gravity infusers, a market where distinctive visual appearance can be a significant brand identifier.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a procedural mechanism often used to sue numerous, difficult-to-identify online sellers, who are frequently located in foreign jurisdictions, in a single case. The complaint makes broad allegations about defendants' common tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-09-02 D943,817 Patent Application Filed
2022-02-15 D943,817 Patent Issued
2022-05-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D943,817 - "Hookah"

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's products, including those embodying the patented design, have become "enormously popular and even iconic" and "instantly recognizable" to the public, making the design a valuable asset susceptible to copying (Compl. ¶5). The patent protects the unique ornamental appearance of the product, which the Plaintiff associates with its brand quality and innovation (Compl. ¶7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design for a hookah. The core of the design, as shown in solid lines in the patent figures, is a vertically-oriented, capsule-like body comprising two stacked, rounded-end cylindrical chambers connected by a central collar (’817 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The patent explicitly disclaims other functional or structural elements, such as the base, side ports, and mouthpiece, by rendering them in broken lines ('817 Patent, Description, "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the hookah that form no part of the claimed design.").
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive design is broadly recognized by consumers and associated with the quality and innovation expected from Plaintiff's "GS Products" brand (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim of the '817 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described" ('817 Patent, Claim).
  • In a design patent, the "claim" is the visual design itself, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The scope of protection is defined by the solid lines in Figures 1-8.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are hookahs, referred to as the "Infringing Products," which are allegedly sold by the unidentified defendants through various e-commerce storefronts (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that defendants operate e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" to sell products that incorporate Plaintiff's patented design to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶2, 3, 11). These stores are alleged to use marketing strategies and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from authorized retailers (Compl. ¶14). The complaint characterizes the defendants as a network of infringers who operate from foreign jurisdictions and use tactics to conceal their identities and financial assets (Compl. ¶¶9, 17, 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the defendants' products infringe the '817 Patent because they are "substantially the same" as the patented "GS Design" (Compl. ¶3) and constitute a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation" of it (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(a)). Infringement of a design patent is determined by 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 to be the patented design.

The complaint provides several views of the patented design. A perspective view of the patented hookah design, showing its dual-chambered capsule-like appearance, is provided in the complaint (Compl. p. 4). While the complaint states that the infringing hookah is shown in "Exhibit 1," that exhibit is not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶3). Therefore, a direct visual comparison cannot be made. The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that the "Infringing Products" sold by Defendants directly and/or indirectly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '817 Patent (Compl. ¶24).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are substantially similar in overall appearance to the claimed design. This analysis will depend entirely on the specific appearance of the accused products, which are not depicted in the complaint document itself.
  • Scope of the Claimed Design: A likely point of dispute will be the effect of the broken lines in the patent's drawings. The defendants may argue that their products are different because they have different (unclaimed) bases, mouthpieces, or port configurations, while the plaintiff will likely argue that infringement is established by the similarity of the core (solid-line) capsule-like body, which constitutes the "overall visual impression" of the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal claim construction of specific text is less central to design patent cases than to utility patent cases. The primary interpretive task is to determine the scope of the claimed design as a whole, based on the drawings.

The Term

"The ornamental design for a hookah"

Context and Importance

The entire dispute hinges on the scope of this claimed design and what an "ordinary observer" would perceive as being part of it. The interpretation will focus on which visual elements are protected and which are not. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between the elements depicted in solid lines versus those in broken lines, as this directly controls the scope of the patent right.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the core capsule-like shape shown in solid lines is the dominant visual feature and creates an overall impression that is protected, regardless of minor variations or differences in the unclaimed (broken line) elements. The figures consistently emphasize this central structure from all angles ('817 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states: "The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the hookah that form no part of the claimed design" ('817 Patent, Description). A party could argue this constitutes a clear disclaimer, strictly limiting the protected design to the exact features shown in solid lines. Therefore, any accused product that differs in the appearance of the claimed elements, or that creates a different overall visual effect due to its combination of claimed and unclaimed features, would not infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations in the complaint focus on the defendants' own direct infringement through making, using, and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶¶20, 24).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is supported by claims that defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products and that they participate in online communities discussing tactics for "evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits" (Compl. ¶¶18, 20).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Without access to the accused products or the complaint's Exhibit 1, the central question of whether an ordinary observer would find the accused products and the patented design substantially the same remains open. The outcome will depend entirely on the visual evidence presented.
  2. The case will also turn on the scope of the claimed design: The legal analysis will likely focus on the extent to which the claimed solid-line features (the dual-chambered capsule) can be considered distinct from the disclaimed broken-line features (base, ports). The key question is whether similarity in the claimed portion alone is sufficient for infringement, even if the unclaimed portions of the accused product differ significantly.
  3. A significant practical challenge will be enforcement: Given that the defendants are alleged to be a large group of anonymous, foreign-based e-commerce operators, a key question is whether the Plaintiff can successfully identify the defendants and enforce any potential judgment against them, a common hurdle in "Schedule A" patent cases.