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” (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02472, N.D. Ill., 03/27/2024
• 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 sale and shipment of products to residents of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are infringing its design patent covering a "finger stretching apparatus."
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is a consumer-grade exercise or physical therapy device designed to strengthen a user's hand and finger extensor muscles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies this action as being related to seven previously filed cases involving the same intellectual property. Plaintiff also notes 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 has not yet formally issued.

Case Timeline

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: While design patents do not contain a "problem-solution" narrative, the complaint frames the context as creating "unique and innovative" designs for "finger stretching products" that are "instantly recognizable" to consumers (Compl. ¶7).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional ornamental appearance of a finger stretcher. The design consists of a wrist strap connected to a palm-side body, from which five arms extend outward, each terminating in a ring-like structure for securing a fingertip (D'990 Patent, FIG. 1). The overall visual impression is defined by the specific shapes, contours, and proportions depicted in the patent's seven figures (D'990 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this particular design has become "very popular" and is associated with the quality of the Kunshengze brand in the market for finger stretchers (Compl. ¶7).
• 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, col. 1:57-59).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1 through 7 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" products referred to as "the Infringing Products," specifically "finger stretching apparatus" sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶5).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others, where they offer for sale and sell products that incorporate the patented design (Compl. ¶13). The complaint provides a photograph of the accused product category, a black finger stretcher with five finger rings, being worn on a hand (Compl. p. 8). These products are alleged to be part of a coordinated effort by the Defendants, who operate under multiple fictitious aliases to sell products from a common source to consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶19, ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or reference a detailed claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the legal standard for design patent infringement, which centers on visual comparison.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the "Infringing Products" sold by the Defendants are visually identical to or substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the '990 patent (Compl. ¶5, ¶26). The legal test for design patent infringement, as established in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the patented design. The complaint alleges that Defendants are selling the "same product that infringes...the Kunshengze Design," which suggests that in Plaintiff's view, the visual similarity is high enough to meet this standard (Compl. ¶22).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will involve a visual comparison. The key question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '990 patent. The scope and relevance of prior art designs, which are not discussed in the complaint, may become central to this analysis.
  • Technical Questions: As this is a design patent case, the dispute is not about technical operation but about appearance. The evidentiary focus will be on comparing images of the accused products with the figures from the '990 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction is not expected to be a central issue in this case. The single claim is for "[t]he ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (D'990 Patent, col. 1:57-59). In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be defined by the drawings, and disputes rarely turn on the construction of the few words in the claim's preamble. The analysis will likely proceed directly to a visual comparison of the accused product and the patented design.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26) and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. p. 16, ¶1.b). The factual allegations primarily describe direct infringement by the defendants through their sales activities, but frame it as a "collective enterprise" where defendants are "working in active concert" (Compl. ¶22, ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale and sold infringing products as part of a coordinated network designed to conceal their identities (Compl. ¶12, ¶22).

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

1. Visual Similarity: The case will fundamentally turn on a question of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, viewing the accused finger stretchers in the context of the relevant prior art, find their ornamental design to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '990 patent?
2. Enforcement and Jurisdiction: A critical practical issue will be one of enforcement: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous "Schedule A" defendants, establish personal jurisdiction, and enforce any resulting judgment against entities that are alleged to operate through transient online storefronts and offshore financial accounts?
3. Impact of Related Cases: A key procedural question will be the precedential effect of the seven related cases filed by the Plaintiff on the same intellectual property. Prior rulings in those cases, particularly regarding the issuance of temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, may significantly influence the trajectory of this litigation.