DCT

1:23-cv-14342

Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co. Ltd v. Group Vertical, LLC

Key Events

Complaint

complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Group Vertical, LLC (United States)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stratum Law LLC
Case Identification: 1:23-cv-14342, N.D. Ill., 09/30/2023
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant targets consumers in Illinois through an interactive Amazon.com storefront and, on information and belief, has sold the accused products to Illinois residents.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pop It Fidget Ball Toy" infringes a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a silicone squeeze ball toy.
Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer product sector for sensory and fidget toys, a market characterized by novelty and distinct visual designs.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-08-20	D'787 Patent Priority Date
2023-01-17	D'787 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D975,787 - “Fidget Toy”

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D975,787 (“Fidget Toy”), issued January 17, 2023.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but instead protect a product's unique ornamental appearance. The objective is to create a new, original, and nonobvious aesthetic design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶1; ’787 Patent, Claim 1).
The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "fidget toy" ('787 Patent, Claim 1). The design, depicted in eight figures, consists of a spherical ball with its surface covered by an array of convex, circular bumps. A distinct seam is visible along the equator, dividing the sphere into two hemispheres ('787 Patent, FIG. 1, 3).
Technical Importance: The design’s importance lies in its aesthetic contribution to the product's marketability in the competitive toy sector. Plaintiff alleges it established its product embodying the design as "first to market" and built a "good reputation" around it (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

The patent contains a single claim: “The ornamental design for a fidget toy, as shown and described” (’787 Patent, Claim 1).
The scope of the claim is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's drawings, which include:
- The overall spherical shape of the toy.
- The pattern, size, and density of the convex, circular bumps covering the surface.
- The presence of a visible equatorial line dividing the two halves of the sphere.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant's "Pop It Fidget Ball Toy" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a silicone squeeze ball marketed as a "fidget toy," "stress relief" toy, and "party favor" (Compl. ¶1, p. 7). The complaint alleges it is sold through Defendant's internet store on Amazon.com, including in multi-packs (Compl. ¶3, p. 7). A screenshot from the Amazon storefront shows the accused product, which is offered in various colors as a "12 Pack Squishy Party Favors with Ball Popper Toy" (Compl. p. 7). Plaintiff alleges the accused product is "virtually identical" to its patented design (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent 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. The complaint presents a side-by-side comparison to support its allegation (Compl. ¶15, p. 5). This image from the complaint shows the accused product next to the patented design from the patent's Figure 1.

D'787 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature (from Claim 1, as shown in Figures)	Alleged Infringing Functionality (based on Complaint images)	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An overall spherical shape for a toy.	The accused product is a ball with an overall spherical shape.	¶15, p. 5	’787 Patent, FIG. 1
A surface covered with an array of convex, circular bumps.	The accused product's surface is covered with an array of convex, circular bumps that can be "popped."	¶15, p. 5	’787 Patent, FIG. 1
A specific pattern, spacing, and density of the surface bumps.	The accused product displays a pattern, spacing, and density of bumps that appears visually consonant with the patented design.	¶15, p. 5	’787 Patent, FIG. 1-8
A visible equatorial dividing line or seam.	The accused product, as depicted in the complaint, appears to have a subtle equatorial line, though its prominence is less clear than in the patent drawings.	¶15, p. 5	’787 Patent, FIG. 3-6

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be one of overall visual similarity. Does the accused product's design, when viewed as a whole, appear substantially the same as the claimed design to an ordinary observer?
Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the visual effect of minor differences. For example, are there subtle variations in the size, curvature, or density of the bumps on the accused product compared to the patent drawings that would be sufficient to distinguish the two designs in the mind of an ordinary observer?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the visual design itself, as depicted in the drawings. Formal construction of text-based terms is generally not the central issue. Instead, the analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole.

The "Term": The ornamental design as a whole.
Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on comparing the overall visual appearance of the accused product to the claimed design. The court will assess the design's scope by considering the drawings from multiple perspectives as shown in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for a "fidget toy," and the design's features (sphere, bumps) are relatively simple. A party could argue these general features should be given broad weight, capturing any similarly configured spherical popper toy.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific arrangement, density, and profile of the bumps, as well as the distinct equatorial seam shown in Figures 3-6, constitute the specific, protected design. A party could argue that any deviation from this precise configuration falls outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement and aiding and abetting (Compl. ¶15; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the requisite elements of knowledge and intent beyond the general act of selling the accused product online.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendant's product is "virtually identical to the claimed design" and is marketed under a nearly identical name ("Pop It Fidget Ball Toy") as Plaintiff's "POP IT BALL" (Compl. ¶12). Plaintiff suggests this similarity "cannot be a coincidence," implying pre-suit knowledge and intentional copying of the patented design.

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

A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of Defendant's "Pop It Fidget Ball Toy" substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'787 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid deception?
A key secondary question will be one of intent: Does the combination of the accused product's allegedly "virtually identical" design and its similar name provide sufficient evidence to support a finding of willful infringement, which could expose the defendant to enhanced damages?