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” (Various foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-16109, N.D. Ill., 11/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ operation of interactive commercial internet stores that target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, and the shipment of accused products to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are making, using, offering for sale, and selling finger stretching devices that infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the ornamental design of physical therapy and exercise equipment, specifically devices used for stretching fingers to improve strength or flexibility.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the case is related to a prior case, 1:23-cv-08005, which it states dealt with the same patent. It also discloses that a Petition for a Certificate of Correction to add an inventor to the patent-in-suit was approved by the USPTO, though the certificate had not yet issued at the time of filing.

Case Timeline

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

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

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990 (the “'990 Patent”), titled "Finger Stretcher," issued March 14, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’990 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects the specific ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture shown in its figures (’990 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
• The Patented Solution: The patented design is for a finger stretcher. It consists of five rings for securing fingertips, which are connected via branching arms to a central body that extends to a wrist strap (’990 Patent, Figs. 1, 6). The overall visual impression is created by the specific shapes, contours, and arrangement of these elements, including the fan-like spread of the finger rings and the configuration of the wrist attachment.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "unique and innovative" and has become "instantly recognizable" to consumers, symbolizing high-quality finger stretchers from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described." (’990 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "finger stretching apparatus" sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts, which the complaint collectively refers to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶¶5, 13). These stores are alleged to sell unauthorized and unlicensed products that copy the patented design claimed in the ’990 Patent (Compl. ¶5). The complaint asserts that Defendants use these aliases to conceal their identities and operate as an interrelated network of infringers (Compl. ¶¶12, 19). The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design, identifying it as the "Kunshengze Design." (Compl. p.4, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or side-by-side visual comparison, as the infringement analysis for a design patent relies on the "ordinary observer" test. The core allegation is that the design of the accused "Infringing Products" is substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’990 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one (Compl. ¶¶5, 26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence of the actual products sold by each of the numerous, and allegedly anonymous, "Schedule A" Defendants. The complaint does not contain images of the accused products themselves.
  • Substantial Similarity: The ultimate question for the court will be whether the designs of the accused products, once identified, are substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’990 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. This will involve a visual comparison of the overall appearance of the products, not a dissection of individual features.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claimed design is defined by the drawings in the patent, and formal construction of verbal claim terms is uncommon. The analysis focuses on a visual comparison of the claimed design and the accused product. The complaint provides no basis for analysis of any specific claim term.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement and asks for relief against those "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). However, the specific factual allegations focus on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, offering for sale, and selling the accused products, which constitute direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶13, 26).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is expressly alleged (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" and in "active concert" as part of a network that uses tactics to evade enforcement, suggesting knowledge of their infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶17-22).

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

1. A primary issue will be one of proof and attribution: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to link specific, infringing product designs to each of the numerous, unidentified e-commerce operators listed on Schedule A?
2. The central legal question will be the application of the ordinary observer test: Assuming evidence of the accused products is presented, would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, be deceived by the similarity between the accused designs and the ornamental design claimed in the ’990 Patent?
3. A significant procedural question will be the viability of the "Schedule A" complaint structure: The court will need to assess whether the allegations of an interconnected network of foreign sellers are sufficient to justify a consolidated action and the broad injunctive relief sought against a large group of unidentified entities.