Shenzhen Kunshengze Elec Tronic Commerce Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unin Corp 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" (Jurisdiction Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 1:23-cv-16234, N.D. Ill., 11/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores and shipping products to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators infringe its design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a finger stretching apparatus.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the market for personal exercise and physical therapy devices, specifically those designed for improving hand and finger strength or flexibility.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this action is related to two prior cases (2023-cv-8005 and 2023-cv-16109) involving the same patent. It also discloses that a Petition for a Certificate of Correction to add Haiqiang Zou as a co-inventor has been approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, though the certificate has not yet formally issued.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990 - "FINGER STRETCHER"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990, "FINGER STRETCHER," issued March 14, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not functional solutions. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff developed "unique and innovative" designs to create products that are "instantly recognizable" in the marketplace for finger stretchers (Compl. ¶7-8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a finger stretcher. The design consists of a wrist strap connected by a narrow arm to a wider, fan-shaped palm base. Five individual, circular finger rings extend from this base on separate arms of varying lengths, creating a distinct overall visual appearance (D'990 Patent, Fig. 1, 6). The claim is defined entirely by the visual representations in the patent's seven figures (D'990 Patent, CLAIM).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design has become broadly recognized by consumers and has come to "symbolize high quality finger stretchers" (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (D'990 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the overall visual appearance of the device as depicted in Figures 1-7 of the patent, not by a list of textual elements.
• The complaint asserts infringement of the design claimed in the '990 Patent (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "finger stretching apparatus" products, referred to as the "Infringing Products," sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress under various "Seller Aliases" to sell unauthorized and unlicensed products that copy the patented "Kunshengze Design" (Compl. ¶5, ¶13, ¶16). These e-commerce stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to unknowing consumers (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design to illustrate the appearance allegedly being copied. (Compl. ¶8, p. 4, FIG. 1). The complaint refers to an "Exhibit 1" as showing an example of an infringing product, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain an element-by-element claim chart, as is common in utility patent cases. For design patents, infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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's infringement theory is that the "Infringing Products" sold by Defendants are visually, substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the '990 Patent (Compl. ¶5, ¶26). It alleges that Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, and/or importing products that embody this patented design without authorization (Compl. ¶26). Because the complaint does not provide images of the accused products, a direct visual comparison is not possible from the document. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence of the accused products' appearance produced during the litigation.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be factual: do the products sold by Defendants create the same overall visual impression as the design claimed in the '990 Patent? The outcome will depend on a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused products.
• Scope Question: The infringement analysis will focus on the overall ornamental appearance, not on the functional aspects of the finger stretcher. The key legal question will be whether any visual differences between the patented design and the accused products are significant enough to alter the overall appearance for an ordinary observer, or if they are merely minor variations that do not prevent a finding of substantial similarity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations. However, the scope of the article of manufacture can be relevant.

• The Term: "Finger Stretcher"
• Context and Importance: This term, taken from the patent's title, defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. The patent's protection is limited to this type of article. Practitioners may focus on this term to ensure the accused product is, in fact, a "finger stretcher" to which the design patent can apply.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer arguments for a particularly broad interpretation. A party might argue the term should encompass any similar hand-exercise device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent itself provides the clearest definition. The claim is for "the ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (D'990 Patent, CLAIM). This language, combined with the detailed figures (Figs. 1-7), intrinsically limits the scope to the specific type of device depicted, which includes a wrist strap and individual rings for each finger.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and asks for an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶1.b). The factual allegations suggest a theory of concerted action, claiming Defendants work "in active concert" and communicate through online chat rooms to coordinate tactics (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products and engage in tactics to conceal their identities, such as using multiple fictitious aliases and moving funds to off-shore accounts to evade judgment (Compl. ¶18, ¶21, ¶22).

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

1. A Factual Question of Similarity: The case will fundamentally turn on an evidentiary question: are the accused products sold by the Defendants "substantially the same" as the '990 Patent's design from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The resolution of this issue will require a direct visual comparison of the accused products against the patent's drawings.
2. A Practical Question of Enforcement: Given the allegations that Defendants are numerous, anonymous, and foreign-based entities operating through transient online storefronts, a central challenge for the Plaintiff will be identifying the responsible parties, establishing personal jurisdiction, and practically enforcing any potential injunction or monetary award.
3. A Latent Question of Validity: The complaint's disclosure of a pending Certificate of Correction to add an inventor (Compl. ¶10) introduces a potential issue. While presented as a procedural matter, any deficiency in correcting the inventorship could be leveraged by Defendants to challenge the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 116.