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"
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-16238, N.D. Ill., 11/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through the operation of commercial internet stores and the shipment of products to residents of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of a finger stretching apparatus infringe its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a device.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to finger and hand exercise devices, a consumer product category often sold through global e-commerce platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this case is related to three prior cases filed in 2023 concerning the same patent. It also discloses that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has approved a petition to issue a Certificate of Correction to add Haiqiang Zou as a co-inventor on the patent-in-suit, though the certificate had not formally issued as of the filing date.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D980,990, "Finger Stretcher," issued March 14, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the same manner as utility patents. The implicit goal is to create a unique and non-obvious ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture, in this case, a finger stretcher, to distinguish it visually in the marketplace (D980,990 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual and aesthetic characteristics of the finger stretcher as depicted in its seven figures (D980,990 Patent, CLAIM; FIGs. 1-7). The design consists of a wrist strap connected to a central body from which five arms extend, each terminating in a ring-like structure to accommodate a finger. The overall configuration and specific contours of these elements constitute the claimed design.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "unique and innovative" and "instantly recognizable" to consumers, thereby serving as a source identifier for Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (’990 Patent, CLAIM).
• Unlike a utility patent, the claim's scope is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, not by a list of textual elements. The seven figures collectively illustrate the claimed design from perspective, front, back, left side, right side, top, and bottom views (’990 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically "finger stretching apparatus" sold by Defendants through various online stores (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants operate e-commerce stores under multiple "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others, targeting consumers throughout the United States (Compl. ¶13). The complaint provides a perspective view of the patented design, showing five finger rings connected to a central body and a wrist strap (Compl. ¶8, p. 4, FIG. 1). It alleges that the products sold by Defendants embody this patented design (Compl. ¶5, ¶26). These stores are alleged to use marketing and content that makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from authorized retailers (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts infringement of a design patent, for which the legal test is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint does not contain a traditional claim chart exhibit. The analysis below is based on the complaint's narrative allegations and the visual evidence provided.

D980,990 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. This will require a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the drawings in the ’990 Patent.
  • Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A potential point of dispute is the extent to which features of the claimed design are dictated by their function rather than ornamental choice. Defendants may argue that elements such as the presence of five finger rings or a wrist strap are purely functional and should be filtered out of the infringement analysis, potentially narrowing the scope of the patent's protection. The court will need to determine which aspects of the design are ornamental and protectable.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete textual terms. The central issue is interpreting the visual disclosure in the patent drawings.

• The "Term": The ornamental design for a finger stretcher.
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on this analysis because the court must distinguish between protected ornamental features and unprotected functional aspects to properly apply the "ordinary observer" test. The outcome of this construction will define what is being compared against the accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression of the design shown in solid lines across all seven figures (’990 Patent, FIGs. 1-7). The absence of broken lines, which are used to disclaim subject matter, suggests the patentee is claiming the design of the entire article as shown.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the fundamental configuration—a wrist strap connected to five finger holders—is a standard, functional arrangement for such a device. This could lead to an interpretation where patent protection is limited to only the specific, non-functional surface contours and styling, making it easier to design around the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" to infringe (Compl. ¶22). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" in the infringement, which suggests a theory of indirect infringement (Compl. p. 13, ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" manufacture, import, and sell the infringing products as part of a coordinated enterprise that is aware of its unlawful conduct (Compl. ¶22).

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

1. Scope of Protection: A primary issue will be one of functionality: to what extent are the features of the "finger stretcher" design, such as the arrangement of five rings and a wrist strap, dictated by function? The court's determination of what is purely ornamental will define the scope of the patent's protection and be critical to the infringement analysis.
2. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case will ultimately turn on a question of fact: would an ordinary observer, after the court filters out any unprotectable functional elements, be deceived into thinking the accused products sold by the Defendants are the same as the design claimed in the '990 Patent?
3. Defendant Identification and Enforcement: A significant practical question is one of jurisdiction and enforcement: given that the Defendants are identified only as anonymous "Seller Aliases" on a schedule, a threshold challenge for the Plaintiff will be successfully identifying, serving, and ultimately enforcing any judgment against these foreign-based e-commerce operators.