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-16246, N.D. Ill., 11/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores and shipping products to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sales of a finger stretching apparatus on various e-commerce platforms infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's product.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of a finger and hand exercise device used for stretching and physical therapy.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this case is related to four prior cases filed in 2023 involving the same patent. It also discloses that a Petition for a Certificate of Correction has been approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to add a second inventor to the patent-in-suit, 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"

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the specification does not articulate a specific technical problem. Instead, the complaint alleges a commercial problem: the need to protect the "reputation and goodwill" associated with Plaintiff's "unique and innovative design" from unauthorized copying (Compl. ¶5, ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a finger stretcher ('990 Patent, Claim 1). The design, shown across seven figures, consists of a wrist strap connected to a central body, from which five distinct, ring-like finger loops extend in a fanned-out configuration ('990 Patent, Figs. 1, 6). The complaint asserts this design is "instantly recognizable" to the public (Compl. ¶7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product's design is a key driver of its popularity and market recognition (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described."
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article depicted in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent. The essential visual elements include:
  • A wrist strap.
  • A central body extending from the strap.
  • Five individual finger loops extending from the central body in a splayed or fanned-out arrangement.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically "finger stretching apparatus" sold by the anonymous Defendants (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, targeting U.S. consumers for the sale of the accused products (Compl. ¶13). These stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers, and the products sold are alleged to be unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's product that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶5, ¶16). The complaint provides an image from the patent, FIG. 1, which it states represents the "Kunshengze Design" that is being infringed (Compl. ¶8, p. 4). This image shows a device with a wrist strap from which a five-looped finger stretcher extends (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D'990 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central question for infringement will be whether an "ordinary observer," taking into account the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused products are the same as the patented design. The complaint does not include images of the accused products themselves, which will be a necessary piece of evidence for this comparison.
  • Evidentiary Questions: A key challenge for the Plaintiff may be factually connecting the anonymous e-commerce storefronts listed in "Schedule A" to the actual manufacture and sale of products that infringe the '990 Patent's design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The single claim in the '990 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" ('990 Patent, Claim 1). In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the patent's figures. Traditional construction of specific written terms is generally not required, as the drawings define the scope of the protected design. The court's analysis will focus on a visual comparison of the patented design to the accused product.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26) and aiding and abetting (Prayer ¶1.b). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as alleging that Defendants provide instructions to third parties on how to infringe or have knowledge of specific acts of direct infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). The complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '990 Patent itself; the allegation appears to rest on an inference of intentional copying of a known product design.

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

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case will centrally depend on a visual comparison. The dispositive question will be whether the accused products are substantially the same in overall ornamental appearance as the design claimed in the '990 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The outcome will rely heavily on the specific appearance of the accused products once identified.
2. Validity in View of Prior Art: A likely point of contention will be the validity of the '990 Patent. The scope of protection afforded to the design will be determined by its novelty and non-obviousness over prior art finger stretcher designs. The degree of similarity or difference from prior art will be critical for both validity and the infringement analysis.
3. Inventorship: The complaint discloses that a Certificate of Correction to add an inventor has been approved but not yet issued (Compl. ¶10). While this appears to be a proactive step to resolve a potential defect, the accuracy and legal status of the patent's inventorship at all relevant times could become a technical but important legal issue for the court to consider.