Ap Global Inc v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AP Global Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint (Foreign Jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chiacchio IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02535, N.D. Ill., 03/28/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including offers for sale and sales of infringing products to consumers, occurred in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of carrying cases infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a case with adjustable internal dividers.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns carrying cases, a product category with a large market, particularly for protecting and organizing technology products and accessories.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint against a group of unnamed defendants, a common procedure in cases targeting online marketplace sellers who may operate under aliases. The complaint also includes counts for trade dress infringement and unfair competition.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-01-08	'950 Patent Application Filing Date
2022-05-10	'950 Patent Issue Date
2024-03-28	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D950,950 S - Case with Adjustable Internal Dividers

Issued May 10, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This is a design patent, which does not solve a technical problem but protects a product's unique ornamental appearance. The patent protects the specific visual design of a carrying case.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a carrying case, characterized by a generally rectangular, soft-sided form with a handle, a zippered main compartment, and a zippered front flap pocket (’950 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 8). The claimed design also includes specific configurations of internal components, such as removable divider panels and flaps, which create a distinct internal layout (’950 Patent, FIG. 10, FIG. 13). The broken lines shown in the patent figures are explicitly claimed as representing stitching, which is part of the overall ornamental design (’950 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design serves to differentiate the Plaintiff’s carrying cases from those of its competitors (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: “The ornamental design for a case with adjustable internal dividers, as shown and described.” (’950 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are “unauthorized and unlicensed infringing carrying cases” sold by the Defendants, referred to as the “Infringing Products” (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous "Internet Stores" on e-commerce platforms like Amazon to sell the Infringing Products to consumers in the U.S., including in Illinois (Compl. ¶5, ¶18). The complaint further alleges that these online stores are designed to appear as if they are selling genuine versions of Plaintiff’s products (Compl. ¶10). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and what it identifies as "Plaintiff's Commercial Embodiment" to illustrate the design at issue (Compl. ¶23). This visual shows an open carrying case with blue lining and several adjustable dividers creating compartments of various sizes (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart but instead presents a narrative theory of infringement. The central allegation is that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an "ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶62). This standard, from Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., is the controlling test for design patent infringement. The complaint alleges that this sameness "deceives prospective purchasers and induces them to purchase Defendants' products supposing them to have come from Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶62). The primary visual evidence supplied to support this allegation is the comparison image showing the patented design's line drawings next to a photograph of Plaintiff's commercial product, which is alleged to embody the patented design (Compl. ¶16, ¶23).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question in design patent cases is the scope of the claimed design. The analysis will involve comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products with the specific design shown in the figures of the ’950 Patent, not merely with the Plaintiff's commercial product.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis must distinguish between ornamental features, which are protected, and functional features, which are not. A key question will be whether any aspects of the claimed design, such as the arrangement of the internal dividers, are dictated primarily by function. The complaint preemptively addresses this by alleging its related trade dress is not functional (Compl. ¶34), suggesting this may be an anticipated area of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction consists of determining the meaning and scope of the design as depicted in the patent's drawings. There are no traditional "terms" to construe.

• The "Claim": The overall ornamental design as shown in Figures 1-16 of the ’950 Patent.
• Context and Importance: The court's interpretation of the drawings will define the scope of the patent's protection. The analysis will focus on what an ordinary observer would perceive as the ornamental aspects of the design, filtering out any elements that are purely functional.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described" (’950 Patent, Claim). Parties may argue that the overall visual impression, rather than minor details, should control the analysis. The various figures showing the case open, closed, and with dividers in different configurations (e.g., ’950 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 10, FIG. 15) could be argued to define a broader scope of overall appearance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's drawings show a very specific visual appearance, including particular shapes for the case, handles, zipper pulls, and internal dividers. A defendant could argue that protection is limited to this precise configuration. The fact that stitching (broken lines) is explicitly part of the claimed design could be used to argue that the precise details are critical to the patent's scope (’950 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "sell, offer for sale, and/or import... products that infringe directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶64). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing the ‘950 patent" (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(iii)).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶67). This allegation is based on assertions that Defendants acted "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness" and in "bad faith" (Compl. ¶58), and that they had knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the patent and the success of its products (Compl. ¶57).

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

1. The Ordinary Observer Test: The case will fundamentally depend on the application of the ordinary observer test. The central question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused carrying cases are the same as the design protected by the ’950 Patent.
2. Ornamental vs. Functional Scope: A critical issue will be the extent to which the features shown in the ’950 Patent are ornamental versus functional. The court will need to determine whether elements like the specific number, size, and hook-and-loop placement of the internal dividers are primarily matters of function (organizing items) or ornamental design choice, as only the ornamental aspects are protected by the design patent.
3. Proof of Infringement by Unnamed Defendants: Given the "John Doe" nature of the complaint, a key practical challenge for the Plaintiff will be linking specific infringing products sold on various online storefronts back to the responsible entities and then demonstrating that those specific products are substantially similar to the patented design.