DCT

1:23-cv-00558

Chrome Cherry Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00558, N.D. Ill., 01/30/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities, including sales, to consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce websites.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell ring sizer products that infringe a U.S. design patent owned by Plaintiff.
  • Technical Context: The technology falls within the field of jewelry accessories, specifically removable devices designed to adjust the fit of a ring on a wearer's finger without permanent modification.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history relevant to the current dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-08-29 U.S. Patent No. D843,872 Priority Date
2019-03-26 U.S. Patent No. D843,872 Issued
2023-01-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D843,872 - “Ring sizer”

  • Issued: March 26, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint identifies a common issue for ring wearers: loose rings that risk falling off or sliding around on the finger (Compl. ¶6).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design for a ring sizer, not its functional aspects (’872 Patent, Claim). The claimed design is for an article intended to be an "adjuster that resizes men's and women's rings for a comfortable fit that is unnoticeable and will not alter the appearance of the ring" (Compl. ¶6). The design, depicted in multiple figures, features an elongated, generally symmetrical body with flared, concave ends, creating a shape reminiscent of a dumbbell or bone (’872 Patent, FIG. 1, 4, 5). The patent discloses multiple embodiments, including a "narrow-band" and a "medium-band" version, as well as variations with a smooth surface and a surface featuring rows of circular indentations (’872 Patent, p. 1, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the product embodying the patented design is the "#1 bestselling product in Amazon's 'Ring Sizers' section," suggesting significant market recognition and consumer demand (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a ring sizer, as shown and described" (’872 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
  • In a design patent, the "elements" are the visual features of the design as depicted in the drawings. The key visual features of the ’872 Patent design include:
    • An elongated body with a varying width.
    • Symmetrical, flared ends with a concave curvature adapted to fit around a ring shank.
    • The overall visual impression of a bone or dumbbell shape.
    • Embodiments that include surface texturing in the form of dimples.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "Infringing Products," specifically ring sizers sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges these are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" as Plaintiff's and refers to an image in Exhibit 1, which was not included in the main complaint document (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are allegedly sold through numerous "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" operating under various "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶3, ¶11). These online stores are alleged to target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, and are designed to appear as authorized retailers by accepting U.S. currency and payment methods (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). The complaint alleges the Defendants are likely foreign entities operating under concealed identities to sell products from a common source and evade enforcement actions (Compl. ¶9, ¶16, ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D843,872 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a ring sizer, as shown and described. Defendants are alleged to be making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling ring sizers that infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’872 Patent. The complaint asserts that the infringing product is the "same" as that embodying the patented design. ¶3, ¶20, ¶24 col. 1:57-59; FIG. 1-12

Visual Evidence

The complaint includes several figures from the ’872 Patent to illustrate the asserted design. The complaint provides a top isometric view of the patented design, showing its elongated, bone-like shape with flared ends (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). A bottom isometric view of the same embodiment is also included, which features rows of circular indentations on its surface (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 2). The complaint also displays alternate embodiments, such as a "medium-band" version of the design (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 7-9).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Question (Visual Similarity): The central question for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. As the complaint alleges the products are the "same" (Compl. ¶3), the dispute may turn on establishing the degree of visual similarity between the accused products and the drawings in the ’872 Patent.
  • Scope Questions: The ’872 Patent discloses multiple embodiments (e.g., "narrow-band" vs. "medium-band," smooth vs. dimpled surface). The infringement analysis will need to compare the accused products to the patented design as a whole, which may raise questions regarding which, if any, specific embodiment is being copied and whether any differences are significant enough to avoid infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Formal claim construction of disputed terms is not typically a central issue in design patent litigation, as the claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings rather than by specific textual limitations. The dispute will likely focus on a visual comparison of the accused product to the patented design.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a boilerplate request for relief against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). However, the factual allegations primarily support a claim for direct infringement by Defendants through their own making, using, and selling activities (Compl. ¶24).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act "knowingly" and in "active concert," operate under fictitious aliases to conceal their identities, and participate in online forums to discuss tactics for evading detection and litigation (Compl. ¶17, ¶18, ¶20).

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

  • Procedural Efficacy: A primary challenge in this case appears to be procedural. Given the allegations of numerous, anonymous foreign sellers operating under shifting aliases, a key question is whether the Plaintiff can effectively identify, serve, and ultimately enforce any potential judgment against the named Defendants.
  • Factual Infringement: The core substantive issue will be one of visual identity. Does the ornamental design of the accused ring sizers create a visual impression that is "substantially the same" as the drawings in the ’872 Patent in the eye of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them?
  • Culpability and Damages: Should infringement be found, a central question will be one of willfulness. Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to show that Defendants' alleged scheme of using multiple aliases and coordinating to evade enforcement constitutes the kind of "egregious" conduct required to justify an award of enhanced damages?