DCT

1:23-cv-15984

Grill Rescue LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Grill Rescue LLC d/b/a Rescue LLC (Florida)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule A, including specifically identified entity Shenzhen LanTian JinRun Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a GrillArt (China)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bishop Diehl & Lee, LTD.
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-15984, N.D. Ill., 06/04/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ business activities targeting consumers in Illinois, including operating interactive e-commerce stores, shipping products to the state, and accepting payment in U.S. dollars, which allegedly caused substantial injury to Plaintiff in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various e-commerce operators are selling "Unauthorized Products," namely grill brushes, that infringe four of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of bristle-free grill brushes, a consumer product in the outdoor cooking and barbeque accessories market.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a Verified First Amended Complaint against a large number of unidentified online sellers, a common litigation strategy targeting networks of alleged counterfeiters. The complaint notes that Plaintiff has an established anti-infringement program and alleges Defendants are part of a coordinated network that uses tactics to conceal their identities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-11-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D945,728
2019-12-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D945,729
2019-12-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D945,730
2019-12-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D946,850
2022-03-08 U.S. Patent No. D945,728 Issues
2022-03-08 U.S. Patent No. D945,729 Issues
2022-03-08 U.S. Patent No. D945,730 Issues
2022-03-22 U.S. Patent No. D946,850 Issues
2024-06-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D946,850 - "Brush for cleaning a grill,"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D946,850 S, "Brush for cleaning a grill," issued March 22, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem; rather, it protects an aesthetic design (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a brush for cleaning a grill, as shown and described" ('850 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, which show a brush with a long, curved handle that flares into a rectangular head ('850 Patent, Figs. 1-8). Unusually, the patent's description states that certain elongated broken lines are "intended to be claimed as stitching," suggesting this surface ornamentation is part of the claimed design ('850 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial success of products embodying the patented designs has led to "significant infringement," suggesting the design has market value (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim covers the ornamental design for a grill brush.
  • The key visual features include the overall shape of the brush, comprising its curved handle and flared head, as well as the specific pattern of stitching depicted with elongated broken lines ('850 Patent, Figs. 1-8; Description).

U.S. Design Patent No. D945,730 - "Brush for cleaning a grill,"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D945,730 S, "Brush for cleaning a grill," issued March 8, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent protects an ornamental design for a grill brush, not a functional solution (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a brush for cleaning a grill, as shown and described" ('730 Patent, Claim). The patent's description states that "The broken lines depict portions of the brush for cleaning a grill that form no part of the claimed design" ('730 Patent, Description). All drawings in the patent appear to be rendered entirely in such broken lines ('730 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: The design is presented as one of a family of patented designs that Plaintiff markets and sells, and whose alleged commercial success has attracted infringers (Compl. ¶¶14, 26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim is for the ornamental design for a grill brush.
  • A central issue for this patent is that the specification disclaims matter shown in broken lines, and all figures appear to exclusively use broken lines, which raises the question of whether any ornamental design is actually claimed ('730 Patent, Description; Figs. 1-7).

U.S. Patent No. D945,729 - "Brush for cleaning a grill,"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D945,729 S, "Brush for cleaning a grill," issued March 8, 2022 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an ornamental design for a grill cleaning brush, which consists of the features shown in solid lines in the patent's figures ('729 Patent, Claim). The design includes a curved handle and a flared head structure, while disclaiming the scraper and cleaning pad portions of the head, which are depicted in broken lines ('729 Patent, Description; Fig. 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the "Unauthorized Products" infringes the claimed design (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. D945,728 - "Brush for cleaning a grill,"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D945,728 S, "Brush for cleaning a grill," issued March 8, 2022 (Compl. ¶8).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a grill brush as a whole, as all features in the figures are shown in solid lines ('728 Patent, Claim; Figs. 1-7). The claimed design includes the curved handle, the flared head, and the scraper element, with no portions of the brush's appearance disclaimed ('728 Patent, Description).
  • Asserted Claims: The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the "Unauthorized Products" infringes the claimed design (Compl. ¶66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Unauthorized Products," specifically grill cleaning brushes, sold by the various Defendants through online e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶3, 26, 38).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are infringing copies of Plaintiff’s "Grill Rescue" brand grill brushes (Compl. ¶¶26, 38). The complaint provides screenshots of Plaintiff's "Grill Brush w/ Scraper" product sold on its website and on Amazon, showing a device with a prominent curved handle and a rectangular cleaning head (Compl. Table 1, p. 5). The complaint alleges Defendants operate a network of online storefronts to sell these products to consumers in the U.S., using tactics to conceal their identities and interrelationships (Compl. ¶¶3, 35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of all four design patents but references claim charts in "Exhibit 7," which was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶42, 50, 58, 66). In the absence of the charts, the infringement theory is summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation for each design patent is that the "Unauthorized Products" sold by the Defendants are substantially the same in appearance as the patented designs (Compl. ¶¶42, 50, 58, 66). For a design patent, infringement occurs if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the claimed design and the accused product is such as to induce the observer to purchase one supposing it to be the other. The complaint asserts that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" make, import, and sell products that "incorporate each of the design elements claimed" in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶41-42). The visual evidence of the accused products themselves is not provided, preventing a direct comparison.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions ('730 Patent): A threshold dispute for the ’730 Patent will likely concern claim scope. Does the patent, whose figures appear to be rendered entirely in broken lines that are expressly disclaimed in the specification, claim any protectable design features at all ('730 Patent, Description; Figs. 1-7)? If the claim is found to have zero scope, it cannot be infringed.
    • Scope Questions ('850 Patent): For the ’850 Patent, a dispute may arise over the interpretation of the "stitching" shown in elongated broken lines. The specification's statement that this feature is "intended to be claimed" is unconventional ('850 Patent, Description). The court may need to determine if this narrows the claim's scope to only cover products with identical stitching, creating a key point of comparison with the accused products.
    • Technical Questions (All Patents): The ultimate infringement question will be a visual one. Without the accused products or the claim charts from Exhibit 7, it is an open question what evidence Plaintiff will present to show that the accused brushes are "substantially the same" as the specific ornamental features claimed in each of the four distinct patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a brush for cleaning a grill, as shown and described"
  • Context and Importance: This term, present in each patent's single claim, defines the scope of the protected design. Its interpretation is not a matter of defining words, but of determining which visual features shown in the drawings are part of the claimed design and which are not. This determination is critical because it establishes the visual benchmark against which the accused products will be compared for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this analysis because the differences in what is "shown and described" across the four patents create distinct, and potentially conflicting, scopes of protection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation (as exemplified by the '730 and '850 Patents):
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might contend that the overall visual impression of the depicted brush should be protected, and that minor details or disclaimed elements should not defeat a finding of infringement if the aesthetic whole is the same.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope would point to the precise language in the patent's description and the specific use of solid versus broken lines. For the ’730 Patent, this evidence suggests a scope of zero, as the specification states broken lines "form no part of the claimed design" and the figures appear to use only broken lines ('730 Patent, Description). For the ’850 Patent, the specific claim to "stitching" could be used to argue the claim is narrowed to only products bearing that exact surface ornamentation ('850 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement and aiding and abetting (Compl. ¶41; Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus on Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, and importing the accused products, which constitute claims for direct infringement (Compl. ¶43).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patent counts (Compl. ¶¶45, 53, 61, 69). The complaint bases this on allegations that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products as part of a sophisticated operation that uses concealment tactics, suggesting knowledge of the infringing nature of their acts (Compl. ¶38, ¶41). Plaintiff also alleges it provides constructive notice of its patent rights on its website and product listings (Compl. ¶15, Table 1).

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

  1. Claim Scope and Validity: A dispositive issue for the ’730 Patent will be one of claim validity: can a design patent that appears to disclaim all features shown in its drawings by rendering them in broken lines be considered to claim any enforceable ornamental design? The resolution of this question may invalidate this patent or render it impossible to infringe.
  2. Claim Construction of Disclaimed vs. Claimed Matter: A key question of claim construction will focus on the different scopes created by the four patents. Can Plaintiff successfully argue that the accused products simultaneously infringe the broad, holistic design of the ’728 Patent, the handle-focused design of the ’729 Patent, and the stitching-specific design of the ’850 Patent? This raises the question of whether the designs are distinct enough to support four separate infringement claims against the same product.
  3. Evidentiary Proof of Infringement: A central evidentiary question will be one of visual comparison: once the accused products are identified and presented, will they be "substantially the same" as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer? This will depend heavily on the evidence in the missing Exhibit 7 and how the court construes the unique claiming strategies used in the patents-in-suit.