PP LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PP, LLC (Jurisdiction not specified)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule “A” (Allegedly residing in the People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Flener IP Law, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-14403, N.D. Ill., 10/02/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through the operation of interactive e-commerce stores that ship products to the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce sellers are infringing its design patent, copyrights, and trademarks related to an expandable food container.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer product—an expandable, triangular container for food slices—within the global e-commerce marketplace.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-01-27	’123 Patent Priority Date (Filing)
2023-01-03	’123 Patent Issue Date
2023-10-02	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D974,123 - "EXPANDABLE PIZZA CONTAINER"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '123 patent does not address a technical or functional problem. Instead, it provides a solution to an aesthetic one: creating a new, original, and ornamental appearance for a consumer product ('123 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific ornamental design for what is described as an "expandable pizza container" ('123 Patent, Title). The design's key visual features include a generally triangular shape, a body with concertina-like folds that allow for expansion and collapse, and a conforming lid ('123 Patent, FIGs. 1-6). The overall visual impression is that of a modern, reusable container shaped to hold a single slice of pizza ('123 Patent, DESCRIPTION, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive patented design is well-recognized by consumers and associated with the quality and innovation of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the single claim of the '123 patent (Compl. ¶33-37).
• The claim protects "the ornamental design for an expandable pizza container, as shown and described" ('123 Patent, col. 2:10-13). In a design patent, the "elements" are the visual features depicted in the patent's drawings. The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • A generally triangular planform shape with one rounded corner.
  • A body composed of multiple horizontal, accordion-style folds.
  • A lid that conforms to the shape of the body.
  • The overall visual appearance created by the combination of these features as depicted in Figures 1-6.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "Infringing Products" offered for sale, sold, and imported by the Defendants through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" (Compl. ¶3, ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's genuine products, designed to appear as authentic goods (Compl. ¶18). The core allegation is not about the products' function but their appearance; they are alleged to incorporate an ornamental design that is "substantially the same, if not identical," to the design protected by the '123 Patent (Compl. ¶37). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants operate as an "interrelated group of infringers," suggesting the accused products originate from common manufacturing sources (Compl. ¶4, ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design. The complaint alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶37). The complaint includes a table showing figures from the patent, such as a perspective view of the container design (Compl. ¶12, p. 6, Figure 1).

’123 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the design "as shown")	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The ornamental design for an expandable pizza container, as shown and described.	The accused products are alleged to be "substantially the same, if not identical" to the patented design.	¶37	col. 2:10-13
The overall visual impression created by the combination of features in the drawings.	The "overall design features of Defendants' products are substantially the same" as the patented design.	¶37	FIGs. 1-6
The specific triangular shape with accordion-style folds.	The accused products allegedly share "similar design elements" with Plaintiff's product, which embodies the patented design.	¶4, ¶37	FIG. 1, FIG. 2

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: A primary factual question for the court will be an evidentiary one: can Plaintiff produce evidence showing that the ornamental designs of the products sold by the various anonymous Defendants are, in fact, "substantially the same" as the claimed design under the ordinary observer test?
  • Scope Question: The case raises the question of whether minor variations in the accused products, if any exist, are sufficient to move them outside the scope of the patented design. The infringement analysis will depend on comparing each accused product to the specific visual features depicted in the '123 Patent's drawings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the visual design itself rather than a set of text-based limitations. As such, traditional claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, as defined by the drawings.

• The "Term": The ornamental design ... as shown and described.
• Context and Importance: The central issue is the scope of the claimed design. The analysis does not concern the definition of a word but the overall visual impression created by the patent's figures. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend entirely on a comparison between the patented design's appearance and that of the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown," and the drawings use solid lines to depict the protected features. The claim is not limited to a specific size, color, or material, which may support a broader scope covering products with the same shape and configuration regardless of these other attributes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of a design patent is limited to its appearance as shown in the drawings. Any significant deviation in an accused product's shape, proportions, or the arrangement of its surface features from what is depicted in Figures 1-6 of the '123 Patent could support a finding of non-infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" (Compl. ¶28). The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" the patented design, suggesting a potential theory of joint or induced infringement (Compl. ¶E.ii).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶29). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of" the patented design and its associated goodwill (Compl. ¶21).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff successfully demonstrate that the products sold by a diffuse network of anonymous foreign sellers are, in fact, visually "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '123 Patent under the ordinary observer standard?
• The case presents a key procedural and enforcement challenge: Given that the Defendants are identified as foreign-based entities operating through various online storefronts, a critical question will be whether the court can exercise personal jurisdiction and, if infringement is found, whether any resulting injunction or monetary award can be effectively enforced against them.