GS Holistic LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

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, Allegedly China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-02299, N.D. Ill., 04/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' direct targeting of business activities, including sales, to consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that hookahs sold by a network of online retailers infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a gravity infuser-style hookah.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the ornamental design of gravity hookahs, a segment of the smoking accessories market valued for both function and aesthetic appeal.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a common procedure in the Northern District of Illinois for targeting numerous, often anonymous, online sellers of allegedly infringing goods. U.S. Patent No. D970,804 is a divisional of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. D943,817, indicating a shared inventive lineage.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-09-02	Priority Date for D943,817 and D970,804 Patents
2022-02-15	U.S. Patent No. D943,817 Issued
2022-11-22	U.S. Patent No. D970,804 Issued
2023-04-12	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D943,817, “Hookah” (Issued Feb. 15, 2022)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution. Their purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a hookah component, not its function ('817 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of two vertically stacked, capsule-like globes connected by a central band from which mouthpiece and bowl connectors protrude ('817 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The broken lines in the patent drawings, such as those depicting a stand, indicate that those elements are for environmental context only and do not form part of the claimed design ('817 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying these patented designs are "iconic," "instantly recognizable," and symbolize high quality in the gravity infuser and hookah market (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described."
• The essential visual features of the claim, shown in solid lines in the patent figures, include:
  • A body composed of two vertically aligned, symmetrical globes with rounded ends.
  • A central band connecting the two globes.
  • Protruding elements extending from the central band.

U.S. Design Patent No. D970,804, “Hookah” (Issued Nov. 22, 2022)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the '817 Patent, the D970,804 patent protects a novel ornamental design rather than solving a technical problem (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims the ornamental design for a complete hookah assembly ('804 Patent, Claim). The design is similar to that of the '817 Patent but is distinguished by claiming the support structure in solid lines, making the stand an integral part of the protected design ('804 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design features the central rotating globe assembly mounted on a distinct L-shaped arm attached to a circular base ('804 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: This design is presented as another of Plaintiff's "distinctive patented designs" that are broadly recognized by consumers and associated with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described."
• The essential visual features of the claim, shown in solid lines in the patent figures, include:
  • A central body of two globes connected by a band, similar to the '817 Patent.
  • A support stand consisting of a vertical arm and a base.
  • The specific arrangement of the central body mounted on the support stand.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are hookahs, identified as the "Infringing Products," sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under the "Seller Aliases" listed in Schedule A (Compl. ¶3, 9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate sophisticated e-commerce stores that are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶14). These stores allegedly accept payment via credit cards, Alipay, Amazon Pay, and PayPal, and often use content and images that make them difficult to distinguish from legitimate channels (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges these products are sold and imported into the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶13, 20). The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design for the '817 patent, which defines the visual appearance of the product at issue (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart but alleges that the "Infringing Products" infringe the ornamental designs of the patents-in-suit. The infringement test for design patents is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

D943,817 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from '817 Patent, Figs. 1-8)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described in the solid-line drawings.	The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import hookahs ("Infringing Products") that directly or indirectly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '817 patent. The complaint provides a top perspective view of the patented design (Compl. p. 4).	¶3, 24	Claim; DESCRIPTION; Figs. 1-8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, when viewed by an ordinary observer, have an overall appearance that is substantially the same as the claimed design. The analysis for the '817 patent must be limited to the features shown in solid lines (the rotating globe assembly), excluding the stand shown in broken lines.
  • Technical Questions: The case will require a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the patent figures. An evidentiary question will be whether the visual similarities are close enough to cause observer confusion, which is the legal standard for infringement.

D970,804 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from '804 Patent, Figs. 1-8)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described in the solid-line drawings.	The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import hookahs ("Infringing Products") that directly or indirectly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '804 patent. The complaint provides a perspective view of this patented design (Compl. p. 7).	¶3, 24	Claim; DESCRIPTION; Figs. 1-8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Unlike the '817 patent, the '804 patent claims the stand as part of the design. The infringement analysis for this patent will question whether the accused products possess a stand and globe assembly that, taken as a whole, is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '804 patent's figures.
  • Technical Questions: The factual dispute will center on the degree of visual similarity between the accused products and the specific combination of globe assembly and support stand shown in the '804 patent figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as depicted in the drawings, rather than on textual terms.

• The Term: The scope of the claimed design as defined by solid vs. broken lines.
• Context and Importance: This distinction is fundamental to a design patent infringement analysis. The two patents-in-suit provide a clear example of its importance. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because the '817 patent deliberately disclaims the stand by rendering it in broken lines, while the '804 patent explicitly claims a stand by rendering it in solid lines. The infringement test must be applied to a different claimed "whole" for each patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (focused on the globe assembly): A party could argue that the core ornamental feature of both patents is the rotating globe assembly, and that an ordinary observer would focus on this "main event" rather than the ancillary stand, potentially suggesting infringement even if the stand of an accused product differs from that in the '804 patent.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (focused on the claim as a whole): A party would argue that the use of broken lines in the '817 patent is a clear and intentional disclaimer, limiting the claim scope strictly to the globe assembly ('817 Patent, DESCRIPTION). For the '804 patent, the same principle would require that an accused product incorporate a substantially similar stand to infringe, as the stand is an integral part of the claimed design ('804 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. p. 17, ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement by the Defendants through their acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused hookahs (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). The stated basis is that Defendants are allegedly "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell the Infringing Products and are part of a network that uses common tactics to evade detection and enforcement (Compl. ¶17, 20).

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

• A core issue will be one of infringement scope: Does the '817 patent, which disclaims a stand, read on the accused products by comparing only the central globe assemblies? And for the '804 patent, which claims a stand, is the overall visual appearance of the accused products, including their stands, substantially the same as the patented design? The case may turn on two distinct applications of the "ordinary observer" test.
• A key procedural question will be the identity of the infringers: The case is brought against a schedule of unidentified online seller aliases. A significant challenge for the Plaintiff will be successfully identifying the operators of these storefronts and establishing that they are a unified, interrelated enterprise as alleged (Compl. ¶17).
• A central evidentiary question will be the visual comparison: The outcome will depend entirely on a visual comparison between the accused products (which are not pictured in the complaint) and the patent drawings. The degree of similarity will determine whether an ordinary observer would be deceived, forming the basis of the infringement finding.