GS Holistic LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GS Holistic, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” (Jurisdiction(s) Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02964, N.D. Ill., 04/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendants target business activities and sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell hookahs that infringe two of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of hookahs and gravity infusers, a consumer product category where distinctive aesthetics can be a significant market differentiator.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a list of unidentified "Schedule A" defendants, a procedural approach often used in anti-counterfeiting litigation against numerous online sellers whose true identities are concealed. Plaintiff states that its own products embodying the asserted designs are marked in compliance with patent law.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D943,817 - "Hookah" (issued February 15, 2022)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific technical problem but asserts that Plaintiff's products are "enormously popular and even iconic, driven by Plaintiff's arduous quality standards and innovative design" (Compl. ¶5). The patent implicitly addresses the need for a unique and recognizable ornamental appearance for a hookah to distinguish it in the marketplace (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The D'817 patent protects the specific ornamental design for a hookah as depicted in its figures (D'817 Patent, Claim). The design consists of the visual characteristics of the article shown in solid lines, featuring two vertically aligned, capsule-like glass chambers connected by a central band (D'817 Patent, FIG. 1). The broken lines in the patent drawings, including the base and certain port structures, depict portions of the hookah that do not form part of the claimed design (D'817 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products with these "distinctive patented designs" are "broadly recognized by consumers" and associated with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described" (D'817 Patent, Claim).
• The core ornamental features comprising the design include:
  • Two vertically stacked, transparent, cylindrical bodies with rounded ends.
  • A solid, opaque central band joining the two cylindrical bodies.
  • The overall visual impression of a vertically symmetrical, capsule-like object.

U.S. Design Patent No. D970,804 - "Hookah" (issued November 22, 2022)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application that led to the D'817 patent, the D'804 patent protects a related ornamental design within the same product family (D'804 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data).
• The Patented Solution: The D'804 patent claims an ornamental design for a hookah component that is visually similar to the design in the ’817 patent but with different features shown in solid versus broken lines (D'804 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). This design also features a central connecting band and portions of a cylindrical body, but it includes solid-line depictions of a side-mounted port and a vertical support structure, while the glass chambers themselves are shown in broken lines and are thus not part of this specific claimed design (D'804 Patent, FIG. 3; Description).
• Technical Importance: This patent protects the specific aesthetic of a key component assembly, contributing to the overall recognizable appearance of the Plaintiff's product line (Compl. ¶5, ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described" (D'804 Patent, Claim).
• The core ornamental features comprising this design include:
  • A central band with an attached, side-protruding cylindrical port.
  • A vertical support arm extending downward from the central band.
  • The specific visual relationship between these solid-line components.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "hookahs shown in Exhibit 1" (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶3). Exhibit 1 was not included with the complaint provided for analysis.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are sold by Defendants through "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" operating under various "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶2, ¶11). These e-commerce stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers and often use content and images that make them difficult to distinguish from genuine sales channels (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further alleges that the Infringing Products sold by the various Defendants "bear similar irregularities and indicia of being unauthorized to one another, suggesting that the Infringing Products were manufactured by and come from a common source" (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused hookahs infringe because their ornamental designs are substantially the same as the designs claimed in the patents-in-suit. The complaint presents figures from the patents to illustrate the claimed designs. For example, the complaint includes a perspective view of the D'817 patent design (Compl. p. 4). A similar perspective view is provided to illustrate the design claimed in the D'804 patent (Compl. p. 7). The complaint does not provide images of the accused products themselves.

D'817 Patent Infringement Allegations

D'804 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central factual question will be the actual appearance of the accused hookahs. Since they are not pictured in the complaint, a visual comparison, which is the cornerstone of design patent analysis, is not yet possible.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. A key question is how the elements shown in broken lines in the patents (e.g., the base in the '817 patent, the glass globes in the '804 patent) will affect the comparison, as those elements are not part of the claimed design and must be disregarded in the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the visual depiction of the design in the patent's drawings. Formal construction of written terms is uncommon. However, the scope of the design protection itself is a central issue.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a hookah, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement case rests on the scope of this term—i.e., what specific visual features are protected and how broadly that protection extends. Practitioners may focus on this because the outcome will depend on whether the design is interpreted as a broad, conceptual "look and feel" or a narrow design limited to the exact details and proportions shown in the drawings.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim covers the overall aesthetic impression created by the combination of claimed features, such as the "dual-chamber, capsule-like" appearance of the '817 design, and that minor deviations in proportion or surface detail do not escape infringement (D'817 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the claim is narrowly limited to the exact visual features shown in the solid lines. The explicit disclaiming of subject matter via broken lines (e.g., the base, various ports) demonstrates an intent to claim only a very specific combination of elements, not a general concept (D'817 Patent, Description; D'804 Patent, Description). Any variation from the depicted solid-line elements could therefore be argued to place an accused product outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶24) and asks the court to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis appears to rest on the allegation that the defendants are part of an interconnected network that knowingly sells infringing products from a common source (Compl. ¶17, ¶20).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged on the grounds that "Defendants are working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶20-21). The allegation is not based on pre-suit notice but on the alleged knowing and intentional nature of the defendants' business model of selling unauthorized goods.

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

1. A Primary Evidentiary Question: The case will first turn on a fundamental evidentiary matter: what is the ornamental design of the accused products? Without a visual comparison between the accused products and the patent drawings, the core infringement question remains entirely abstract.
2. A Question of Visual Similarity: Assuming the accused products are identified, the central legal issue will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. Does the overall visual impression of the accused hookahs create a design that is "substantially the same" as the specific combination of features depicted in the solid lines of the D'817 and D'804 patents?
3. A Question of Enforcement: A significant practical challenge in this case will be the identification, service, and collection of any potential judgment from the "Schedule A" defendants, who are alleged to be unknown entities operating under fictitious aliases and potentially located in foreign jurisdictions (Compl. ¶9, ¶19).