DCT
1:23-cv-01992
Shenzen Kean Silicone Product Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stratum Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01992, N.D. Ill., 04/04/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities who target business activities toward the United States, including by operating interactive commercial internet stores through which Illinois residents can purchase the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell silicone squeeze ball fidget toys that infringe its U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of products in the consumer market for sensory or "fidget" toys, which are popular items for stress relief and entertainment.
- Key Procedural History: The operative First Amended Complaint was filed to add a newly discovered defendant to an action targeting a group of unidentified online sellers alleged to be working in concert.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-08-20 | '787' Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-01-17 | '787 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-03-29 | Original Complaint Filing Date |
| 2023-04-04 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D975,787 - "Fidget Toy"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The patent's filing implicitly addresses a market opportunity for a new and distinct aesthetic design for a fidget toy.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "fidget toy" as depicted in its figures ('787 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a generally spherical ball covered with a repeating pattern of semi-spherical, outwardly-protruding nubs or "bubbles," with a visible equatorial seam dividing the sphere into two hemispheres ('787 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3).
- Technical Importance: The patent serves to protect a specific visual appearance within the competitive and design-driven market for sensory toys, which Plaintiff claims to have established as a "first to market" product ('787 Patent, Title; Compl. ¶6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a fidget toy, as shown and described" ('787 Patent, Claim).
- The claimed design is defined by the overall visual impression created by its features, including:
- A generally spherical shape.
- A surface covered by a plurality of semi-spherical, outwardly-protruding bumps.
- An equatorial line or seam separating the sphere into two halves.
- The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally, which encompasses the single design claim (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as the "silicone squeeze ball, or 'Fidget Toy'," which are referred to as the "Infringing Products" sold via the "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The products are described as "Fidget Toys," indicating they are intended for tactile stimulation and stress relief (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges that the Defendants' online stores use "the same product images, same advertising, design elements (e.g., tie-die coloring)" as Plaintiff's authorized products (Compl. ¶1). Plaintiff alleges that its own "POP IT STRESS BALL" was first to market and has an established reputation, and that Defendants are online infringers trading on that reputation (Compl. ¶¶1, 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint identifies the infringing products as having the design shown in Exhibit 2, which is a copy of the '787 Patent (Compl. ¶1). This visual reference forms the basis for the infringement allegation by directly equating the appearance of the accused products with the patented design.
D975,787 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a fidget toy, as shown and described. | Defendants offer for sale, sell, and/or import "Infringing Products" that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Patent." | ¶21 | N/A (entire patent) |
| A generally spherical shape with an equatorial seam. | The Infringing Products are described as a "silicone squeeze ball" that embodies the design shown in the patent figures, which depict a seamed sphere. | ¶1, Ex. 2 | FIGS. 1-8 |
| A surface covered with a plurality of outwardly-protruding, semi-spherical bumps. | The Infringing Products are alleged to feature the patented design, which is characterized by these bumps; the complaint notes some defendants use "identical product images" showing these features. | ¶1, ¶11 | FIGS. 1-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central legal question will be whether an "ordinary observer," comparing the accused products to the '787 Patent's figures, would find the two designs to be substantially the same.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what specific visual differences, if any, exist between the various accused products and the patented design. The complaint's acknowledgement that defendants sell products with "minor variations" suggests that the scope of "substantially the same" will be a focal point of any non-infringement defense (Compl. ¶11).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a fidget toy, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: In design patent litigation, there are no textual claim terms to be construed in the traditional sense. Instead, the "construction" of the claim involves articulating the overall visual impression of the design depicted in the patent's figures. Practitioners may focus on this process because the scope of the patent's protection is defined entirely by these visuals, and the infringement analysis will hinge on a comparison of the accused product's appearance to this claimed design.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A court could interpret the claim broadly to cover the general visual impression of a "bumpy sphere," potentially capturing products with slight variations in the shape, size, or density of the bumps, so long as the overall aesthetic is preserved. The patent does not claim any specific color, material, or scale, leaving those aspects outside the scope of the design ('787 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A court could focus on the specific details shown in the figures, such as the precise arrangement and shape of the bumps, their relative density, and the prominent equatorial seam dividing the hemispheres ('787 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3, 7). An accused product that deviates from this specific arrangement in a manner noticeable to an ordinary observer could be found to fall outside the claim's scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "directly and/or indirectly" infringe and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶21; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis alleged is the act of knowingly offering for sale and selling products that directly infringe the patent (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶18). This allegation is based on the claim that Defendants "knowingly and willfully offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into the United States" products that infringe the patent without authorization (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge was pre-suit or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: will an ordinary observer, comparing the accused "Fidget Toys"—some of which are alleged to have "minor variations"—with the figures of the '787 Patent, find the designs to be substantially the same as to be likely to deceive?
- A key evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can successfully link the specific, anonymous online storefronts listed in Schedule A to the actual sale of products that infringe the patented design, and obtain representative samples for the court's comparison.
- The case also raises a question of remedies: given the nature of the defendants as a shifting group of pseudonymous online sellers, the practical effectiveness of a potential injunction and the ability to locate assets to collect damages or profits will be significant factors in the litigation's ultimate outcome.