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: 1:24-cv-00445, N.D. Ill., 01/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through the operation of interactive e-commerce stores and the shipment of products to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell a finger stretching apparatus that infringes its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology falls within the market for personal exercise and physical therapy devices, specifically for strengthening and stretching the hand and fingers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the case is related to several earlier cases filed in 2023 involving the same intellectual property, suggesting a broader enforcement campaign against various online sellers. The Plaintiff has also filed and received approval for a Petition for a Certificate of Correction for the asserted patent to add an additional inventor, though the certificate had not yet issued at the time of filing.

Case Timeline

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D980,990, titled "FINGER STRETCHER," issued on March 14, 2023 (the “’990 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint and patent identify the product category as "finger stretchers," which are used for exercise and rehabilitation of the hand and fingers (Compl. ¶7; ’990 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The ’990 Patent does not claim a functional apparatus but rather the specific ornamental design for a finger stretcher (D’990 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of a main body with an integrated wrist strap, from which five arms radiate outwards. Each arm terminates in a ring-like structure for securing a fingertip. The overall visual appearance is defined by the specific shapes, contours, and configuration of these elements as depicted in the patent’s figures (D’990 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique and innovative design" is a key driver of the product's popularity and that the design has become "instantly recognizable" to consumers as a symbol of quality (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).
• The scope of a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The claim covers the overall visual appearance of the finger stretcher as illustrated in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others, through which they offer for sale and sell unauthorized products that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶13, ¶26). The complaint provides a photograph of what it identifies as the "Kunshengze Design," showing the device strapped to a hand with markings for different resistance levels on the finger loops (Compl. p. 8). Plaintiff alleges these stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to unknowing consumers and that the sellers use tactics to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶12, ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement allegation is based on the assertion that the accused "Infringing Products" embody the ornamental design claimed in the ’990 Patent (Compl. ¶26). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central dispute will be a factual comparison of the accused products sold by each Defendant against the drawings in the ’990 Patent. The case will turn on whether any differences in appearance are minor enough that an ordinary observer would find the designs substantially the same.
  • Scope Question: The complaint groups numerous sellers and their products together, suggesting Plaintiff's position is that the accused products are all identical or nearly identical copies from a common source (Compl. ¶19). A potential point of contention could arise if certain Defendants' products have visual features that distinguish them from the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim’s scope is defined by the visual representations in the patent drawings rather than by textual descriptions. The analysis focuses on a direct visual comparison between the patent figures and the accused product. The term "finger stretcher" in the claim title may serve to limit the scope of the patent to articles of that type, but this is unlikely to be a point of dispute as the accused products are also identified as finger stretchers (Compl. ¶5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing conduct (Compl. ¶26). However, the factual allegations primarily support a claim for direct infringement (making, using, selling). The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, but the complaint body does not plead specific facts to support a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. p. 16, ¶1.b).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products and that they use tactics such as fictitious aliases and multiple storefronts to conceal their operation and evade enforcement, which may be argued as evidence of an intent to infringe (Compl. ¶12, ¶19, ¶22).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: Are the accused finger stretchers sold by the various Defendants substantially the same in appearance as the design claimed in the ’990 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The outcome will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the actual products with the patent’s drawings.

2. A significant procedural question will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: Can the Plaintiff successfully pierce the anonymity of the "Schedule A" Defendants, establish personal jurisdiction, and enforce a potential judgment against entities alleged to be operating from foreign jurisdictions and actively concealing their identities?