Shenzhen Kunshengze Elec Tronic Commerce Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-8005, N.D. Ill., 09/08/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities and sales to consumers in Illinois, including the shipment of infringing products to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell finger stretching devices that infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of finger-strengthening and rehabilitation devices, a product category sold widely on e-commerce platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" case, a common procedural posture for targeting numerous, often anonymous, online sellers who allegedly operate through various aliases on platforms like Amazon and eBay. The complaint notes that Defendants are believed to reside in jurisdictions with lax intellectual property enforcement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D980,990 - "Finger Stretcher"

Issued March 14, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'990 Patent does not describe a technical problem in its specification. Its purpose is to claim a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, distinguishing it aesthetically from prior devices (D’990 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a finger stretcher. The design consists of a wrist strap connected to a central body, from which five arms extend radially. Each arm terminates in a ring intended to hold a finger. The overall impression is created by the specific proportions, contours, and arrangement of these elements, as depicted in the patent’s figures (D’990 Patent, FIG. 1, 6). The complaint alleges this design is unique, innovative, and instantly recognizable to consumers (Compl. ¶6-7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the distinctive patented design has become broadly recognized by consumers and is associated with quality and innovation, symbolizing the Kunshengze brand (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (D’990 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the device illustrated in the patent's seven figures (D’990 Patent, FIG. 1-7).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "finger stretching apparatus" referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, using multiple "Seller Aliases" to offer for sale and sell the Infringing Products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).
• These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers, using sophisticated marketing and accepting various forms of payment (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that the products sold by the various Defendants are manufactured by and come from a common source (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for infringement of a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendants' products infringe the D'990 patent because they are visually identical to the claimed design (Compl. ¶24).

The complaint incorporates Figure 1 from the D'990 Patent to represent the "Kunshengze Design" that Defendants are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶7). The complaint alleges that the "Infringing Products" feature this patented design (Compl. ¶4). A representative visual from the complaint shows a perspective view of the patented finger stretcher design, highlighting its distinct wrist strap, central body, and five splayed finger rings (Compl. ¶7, FIG. 1). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused products create the same overall visual impression as the one depicted in the D'990 Patent's figures, leading an ordinary observer to purchase the infringing product believing it to be the patentee's authentic product (Compl. ¶4, ¶24).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary question will be whether the specific products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous "Schedule A" Defendants are, in fact, substantially the same in overall appearance as the design claimed in the D'990 Patent. The complaint does not contain photographs of the actual accused products, instead relying on the assertion that they embody the patented design.
  • Prior Art Question: While not raised in the complaint, a potential defense could involve introducing prior art designs of other finger stretchers. The court would then need to determine if the D'990 patent design is sufficiently distinct from the prior art and if the accused products are closer in appearance to the D'990 patent than to any prior art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, there are typically no "terms" to construe as in utility patent litigation. The "claim" is the design as a whole, depicted in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall visual impression rather than the definition of specific words.

• The Scope of the Patented Design:
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the claim will be critical. The central issue is what specific ornamental features, in combination, constitute the protected design and how different an accused product must be to escape infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Scope: A party might argue for a broader scope by focusing on the general arrangement: a wrist-strapped device with a central palm element and five splayed, ring-tipped extensions (D’990 Patent, FIG. 1, 6). This interpretation would suggest that minor variations in curvature or proportion do not alter the overall visual impression.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Scope: A party could argue for a narrower scope by emphasizing the precise details shown in the drawings. This could include the specific shape of the central body, the exact angle and length of the arms connecting the rings, the design of the wrist strap buckle, and the particular contours of the finger rings themselves (D’990 Patent, FIG. 2-7). This interpretation would suggest that only products that are virtually identical in all visual respects would infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" the infringing product (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). The complaint alleges Defendants are "working in active concert" to sell the products (Compl. ¶20).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" manufacture, import, and sell products that infringe the Kunshengze Design (Compl. ¶20).

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

1. Procedural Efficacy: A central question is procedural: can the Plaintiff effectively obtain jurisdiction and meaningful relief against a large, diverse, and anonymous group of foreign e-commerce operators identified only as "Schedule A" defendants? The success of the case may depend heavily on the court's willingness to permit this collective litigation strategy and the subsequent ability to enforce any resulting injunctions or judgments.
2. Scope and Infringement: The core substantive issue will be one of visual identity. Assuming the Plaintiff can present evidence of the accused products, the court will need to apply the ordinary observer test. This raises the question: are the accused products sold by Defendants substantially the same in overall ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the D'990 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
3. Prior Art Comparison: Should the case proceed and Defendants appear, a key evidentiary question will likely emerge: how does the patented design compare to the landscape of prior art finger stretchers? The novelty and non-obviousness of the design's appearance, when viewed in light of what came before, will be critical in defining the scope of protection and determining infringement.