1:23-cv-14403
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 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., 10/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly targeting and conducting business with consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through the operation of interactive e-commerce stores that sell infringing products to Illinois residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a network of online sellers is infringing its design patent, copyrights, and trademarks by manufacturing and selling counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's expandable food container product.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer product, an expandable, triangular container intended for storing slices of pizza.
- Key Procedural History: The action is an Amended Complaint filed against a large number of unidentified entities listed in a sealed "Schedule A," a common procedure in anti-counterfeiting litigation targeting diffuse online sellers. The complaint alleges these entities intentionally conceal their identities.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-01-27 | U.S. Patent No. D974,123 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2023-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. D974,123 Issued |
| 2023-10-03 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D974,123, Expandable pizza container, issued January 3, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not specify a technical problem, but frames the invention in the context of creating a product with a "unique," "original," and "innovative design" that became "enormously popular" with consumers (Compl. ¶5, ¶9). The patent's title suggests a solution for storing non-standard food shapes, like individual pizza slices, in an appropriately sized and shaped container.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a container, not its utilitarian features (D'123 Patent, Claim). The claimed design, depicted in the patent's figures, consists of a triangular, wedge-shaped container featuring accordion-like folds on its vertical sides, a flat top and bottom, and a rounded edge on its widest side (D'123 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The complaint alleges this design is distinctive and well-recognized by consumers (Compl. ¶12).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product's distinctive and "innovative design" has led to its commercial success and recognizability in the marketplace (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the '123 Patent is asserted.
- The claim covers "The ornamental design for an expandable pizza container, as shown and described" (D'123 Patent, col. 1:57-59). The elements are the collective visual features depicted in the patent's six figures, including:
- The overall triangular, wedge-like shape.
- The accordion-style, collapsible sidewalls.
- The flat top and bottom surfaces.
- The specific proportions and rounded edge of the container.
- The complaint does not reserve the right to assert other claims, as is typical for a single-claim design patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products" described as "counterfeit versions" and "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's genuine products (Compl. ¶3, ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are sold through numerous "Defendant Internet Stores," which are online storefronts operated by an "interrelated group of infringers and counterfeiters" believed to be based in China (Compl. ¶4, ¶17, ¶18). These stores allegedly use Plaintiff's own copyrighted photographs to advertise and sell the infringing products to U.S. consumers, creating consumer confusion (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges the accused products share "similar design elements" with Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that infringement is met under the "ordinary observer" test, stating that the accused products' designs are "substantially the same, if not identical" to the patented design, such that they would deceive a purchaser (Compl. ¶37). The complaint includes a table showing six figures from the asserted patent, illustrating the claimed design from perspective, front, side, top, and bottom views (Compl. ¶12).
D'123 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for an expandable pizza container, as shown and described. | Defendants are making, using, selling, and/or importing products whose "ornamental designs... and the overall design features... are substantially the same, if not identical" to the claimed design (Compl. ¶37). | ¶34, ¶35, ¶37 | col. 1:57-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: As the complaint does not provide images of the accused products, the primary question for the court will be a direct visual comparison. The central dispute will be whether the visual appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '123 Patent. The complaint's characterization of the accused products as "counterfeit" and "identical" suggests Plaintiff will argue for a high degree of visual similarity (Compl. ¶4, ¶37).
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is what the accused products actually look like. The analysis will depend on evidence, such as product samples or photographs, that demonstrates the specific ornamental features of the products sold by Defendants. The complaint's infringement theory rests on the allegation that these features are, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, legally indistinguishable from the patented design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is rare, as the claim is understood to be the design shown in the drawings. However, the scope of the article to which the design is applied can sometimes be a point of contention.
- The Term: "expandable pizza container"
- Context and Importance: This phrase appears in the patent's title and its single claim (D'123 Patent, Title; col. 1:57-59). While design patents protect non-functional ornamentation, the identification of the article of manufacture can frame the scope of protection. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue that its product is a different article of manufacture (e.g., a non-expandable container or one intended for a different purpose), potentially side-stepping infringement if the argument were successful.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the "ornamental design... as shown and described" (D'123 Patent, col. 1:57-59). The primary focus of the legal test is the overall visual appearance depicted in the figures, not the functional nature or name of the article. The visual features, such as the accordion-like walls, are part of the claimed ornamentality regardless of their function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently identifies the invention as an "expandable pizza container" in its title, description, and claim (D'123 Patent, Title; Description; Claim). A party could argue this language limits the scope of protection strictly to articles that are both expandable and intended for pizza, suggesting the design is inapplicable to a visually similar but functionally different product.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint requests injunctive relief against any party "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" the patented design (Compl. p. 21, ¶E.ii). This language suggests an intent to hold members of the alleged "interrelated group of infringers" liable for the infringing acts of others within the network (Compl. ¶18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly 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] Design" and goodwill, and further supported by the allegation that Defendants use Plaintiff's own product photography to market the infringing goods, which may suggest intentional copying (Compl. ¶21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central evidentiary issue will be one of visual identity: once the accused products are presented, will a side-by-side comparison reveal their ornamental design to be "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'123 patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The complaint’s strong allegations of "counterfeit" and "identical" products frame this as the core factual dispute for the patent claim.
A critical procedural question will be one of jurisdiction and enforcement: can the Plaintiff effectively pierce the anonymity of the "Schedule A" Defendants, establish personal jurisdiction over these foreign-based entities, and enforce a potential judgment against a diffuse and shifting network of online sellers designed to evade such actions?