DCT
1:24-cv-00523
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic 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” (Jurisdictions Undetermined)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00523, N.D. Ill., 01/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and ship products to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell finger stretching devices that infringe Plaintiff's U.S. design patent and copyrighted images.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to hand-held exercise devices used for finger and grip strengthening and rehabilitation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this action is related to several prior cases involving the same intellectual property. Plaintiff also discloses that a Petition for a Certificate of Correction to add an additional inventor to the asserted patent has been approved by the USPTO, though the certificate has not yet formally issued.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-01-01 | Plaintiff began marketing products in the U.S. |
| 2021-11-05 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D980,990 |
| 2023-03-14 | U.S. Patent No. D980,990 Issued |
| 2023-04-26 | Copyright Registration Date |
| 2024-01-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 D'990 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. The claimed subject matter falls within the category of devices intended for finger extension exercises against resistance.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental, non-functional appearance of a finger stretcher device. The design, as illustrated in the patent’s figures, consists of a wrist strap assembly connected to a palm-side body, from which five distinct arms radiate outwards, each terminating in a ring designed to accommodate a fingertip (D’990 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 6). The overall configuration presents a unique visual impression.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product's "unique and innovative design" has made genuine versions of the product "instantly recognizable" to consumers (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which covers the ornamental design as shown in the patent's drawings. The sole asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (D’990 Patent, Claim).
- The protected design is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent’s seven figures, including:
- The overall shape and configuration of the device.
- The specific contours of the central body and the arms extending to the finger rings.
- The appearance of the wrist strap and its connection point to the body.
- The proportional relationship between these components.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "finger stretching apparatus" products, which the complaint refers to collectively as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5). These products are allegedly sold by numerous e-commerce stores operated by the unidentified Defendants on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are unauthorized copies that are visually indistinguishable from the Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶5, ¶26). These products are marketed and sold to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, for the purpose of finger and hand exercise (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides a photograph of what appears to be Plaintiff's own product, embodying the patented design and showing its various resistance levels marked on the finger rings (Compl. p.8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test for design patents, which asserts that the accused products are substantially similar in overall appearance to the patented design.
D'990 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Key Ornamental Feature (from the design claimed in D'990 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a finger stretcher as depicted in the patent's figures. | The complaint alleges that Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that infringe the ornamental design claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶26). The visual similarity is asserted to be sufficient to deceive an ordinary observer into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. | ¶5, ¶26 | D'990 Patent, FIGS. 1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central infringement question will be whether an ordinary observer, viewing the accused products, would find their overall design to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'990 Patent. This analysis requires comparing the designs as a whole.
- Technical Questions: A potential issue for the court is the distinction between functional and ornamental features. Defendants may argue that certain aspects of the design (e.g., the presence of five finger rings, a wrist strap) are dictated by the product's function and should be disregarded in the infringement analysis. The dispute would then focus on whether the allegedly ornamental aspects of the accused products are substantially similar to those claimed in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction is typically not a central issue in design patent cases, as the claim scope is defined by the drawings rather than by words. The single claim of the D'990 Patent recites "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (D’990 Patent, Claim). As such, there are no specific terms from the claim itself that are likely to require judicial construction. The analysis will instead focus on a comparison of the accused designs to the patent's figures.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26) and aiding and abetting (Prayer for Relief, ¶1.b). However, the factual allegations primarily focus on direct infringement through Defendants' own acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused products.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act in concert, use tactics to conceal their identities, and participate in online forums discussing methods for evading intellectual property enforcement (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The Ordinary Observer Test: The central issue is one of visual comparison: will an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser would, be deceived into thinking the accused products are the same as the patented design? The case's outcome will depend heavily on the holistic visual comparison of the products.
- Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A key legal question will be how to properly separate the purely functional aspects of the finger stretcher from the claimed ornamental design. The court's determination of which features are protectable as ornamental will be critical to the scope of the patent and the ultimate infringement finding.
- Enforcement and Identification: From a procedural standpoint, a significant challenge for the Plaintiff will be successfully identifying the anonymous operators of the online stores listed in Schedule A, establishing personal jurisdiction, and enforcing any resulting judgment, given the allegations of Defendants' use of fictitious identities and offshore operations (Compl. ¶11, ¶21).