ND Products, Inc. v. Does 1-127

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ND Products, Inc. (Jurisdiction not specified)
  • Defendant: Does 1-127 (alleged individuals and unincorporated business associations residing in foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keener & Associates, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-03444, N.D. Ill., 07/01/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, have targeted business activities toward Illinois consumers, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a network of unidentified foreign online merchants sells counterfeit ear cleaning devices that infringe a U.S. patent covering a system for earwax removal.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to personal hygiene devices for at-home earwax removal, designed to offer a safer and more effective alternative to conventional methods like cotton swabs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or administrative proceedings concerning the patent-in-suit. The case is structured as a single action against 127 unidentified "Doe" defendants, who are alleged to be an "interrelated group of infringers" sourcing products from a common manufacturer.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-06-12	U.S. Patent No. 10,813,792 Priority Date
2020-10-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,813,792 Issue Date
2022-07-01	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,813,792 - "System and Method for Removal of Earwax and Particulates" (Issued Oct. 27, 2020)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the problem of cerumen impaction, or earwax blockage, which can be exacerbated by common items like ear buds or cotton swabs that push wax deeper into the ear canal, potentially causing complications or damaging the ear (’792 Patent, col. 1:5-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an ear cleaning apparatus comprising a handle and a replaceable tip. The tip features soft, spiral-shaped fins designed to engage and extract earwax by spinning the handle ('792 Patent, col. 3:18-24). A key safety feature is a flared design or solid plate at the base of the tip that acts as a stopper, physically limiting the insertion depth to prevent accidental contact with the eardrum ('792 Patent, col. 3:12-16).
• Technical Importance: The patented design purports to provide a safer method for at-home ear cleaning by both preventing over-insertion and using a rotational, extractive mechanism rather than a pushing motion ('792 Patent, col. 3:9-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint specifically asserts infringement of independent Claim 1 and makes a general allegation against all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶12, ¶42).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • a spiral-shaped head;
  • a locking mechanism coupled to the spiral-shaped head, where the mechanism includes a center protrusion and a pair of longitudinally extending locking tabs; and
  • a handle with a receiving portion configured to releasably couple to the locking mechanism.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "all claims of the Asserted Patent" (Compl. ¶42), which would include independent Claim 18 and various dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are identified as "Counterfeit Products" and "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶4, ¶9). They are allegedly sold by the 127 Doe Defendants through online webstores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Wish (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substandard copies" of Plaintiff's own products and that all Defendants are selling the "same infringing product" sourced from a common, unknown manufacturer in China (Compl. ¶10, ¶11, ¶16). The complaint focuses on the commercial conduct of the Defendants—alleging they operate as an "interrelated group of counterfeiters" that intentionally conceals their identities—rather than providing a detailed technical description of the accused products' operation (Compl. ¶5, ¶6). The core technical allegation is that the accused products practice the limitations of Claim 1 of the patent (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. It makes a general allegation that the accused products infringe Claim 1 (Compl. ¶12). The infringement theory is summarized below based on this allegation.

’792 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a spiral-shaped head	The "Counterfeit Products" are alleged to possess a spiral-shaped head.	¶12, ¶16	col. 6:57
a locking mechanism coupled to the spiral-shaped head, the locking mechanism including a center protrusion and a pair of longitudinally extending locking tabs	The "Counterfeit Products" are alleged to possess a locking mechanism with a center protrusion and locking tabs for coupling to the head.	¶12	col. 6:58-61
a handle including a receiving portion configured to receive the locking mechanism to releasably couple the spiral-shaped head to the handle	The "Counterfeit Products" are alleged to possess a handle designed to releasably couple with the locking mechanism of the head.	¶12	col. 6:62-64

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are made "on information and belief" and lack specific factual support tying any particular Defendant's product to the claim limitations. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the products sold by each of the 127 Doe Defendants meet every element of Claim 1, particularly the specific "locking mechanism" with its "center protrusion" and "pair of longitudinally extending locking tabs."
• Technical Questions: What is the precise structure of the accused products? The complaint's theory of infringement depends on the accused products being "copies" (Compl. ¶16), but it provides no evidence to show whether these products replicate the claimed invention literally or merely have a similar appearance.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any claim construction disputes. However, the following terms from independent Claim 1 appear central to a potential infringement analysis.

• The Term: "locking mechanism...including a center protrusion and a pair of longitudinally extending locking tabs"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific interface between the disposable head and the reusable handle. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused products' coupling feature can be characterized as meeting this multi-part definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because a generic snap-fit mechanism may not satisfy all the structural requirements recited in the claim, offering a potential non-infringement argument.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the handle and tip working together as a "system for spinning the spiral tip" and to "facilitate disposal of the used tip" ('792 Patent, col. 3:22-26), suggesting a functional interpretation of the coupling.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific. Further, the patent's figures depict very particular embodiments of this mechanism (e.g., '792 Patent, FIG. 7, 19, 31A-E), which a party could argue limit the scope of the term to the structures shown or their equivalents.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "personally contributing to, inducing and engaging in the sale of Counterfeit Products as alleged, often times as partners, co-conspirators, and/or suppliers" (Compl. ¶4). The basis for inducement appears to be the alleged concerted action among the defendants in a shared enterprise to sell the infringing products.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on the assertion that Defendants had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the Asserted Patent" and are part of a group of "patent infringers working in active concert" (Compl. ¶5, ¶25). The complaint further states that the infringement is "obvious and notorious" and that Defendants lack a good faith basis for their actions (Compl. ¶43).

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

1. Procedural Viability: A threshold question will be procedural: can Plaintiff successfully establish personal jurisdiction over, and properly join in a single lawsuit, 127 unidentified foreign defendants based on allegations that they constitute an "interrelated group" (Compl. ¶9) selling the "same infringing product" (Compl. ¶11) into the forum?
2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A central evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to prove infringement on a defendant-by-defendant basis. The case will likely turn on whether Plaintiff can produce specific accused products for each of the 127 defendants and demonstrate that each product practices every limitation of the asserted claims, moving beyond the complaint's high-level "information and belief" allegations.
3. Definitional Scope: Should the case proceed to claim construction, a key issue will be the scope of the "locking mechanism." The court’s interpretation of whether this term requires the specific structures depicted in the patent's embodiments or can be read more broadly will be critical to determining the breadth of the patent's protection and the viability of infringement claims against products that may have similar functionality but different coupling structures.