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"
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03154, N.D. Ill., 04/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities, including sales and shipments, toward consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are infringing its U.S. design patent and copyrights by selling unauthorized finger stretching apparatuses that copy Plaintiff's proprietary design.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is a hand exercise device, commonly known as a finger stretcher, used for rehabilitation, physical therapy, or strength training.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this action is related to eight prior cases involving some or all of the same intellectual property. It also discloses that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted a petition for a Certificate of Correction 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: The patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead seeks to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for a finger stretcher (D980,990 S, p. 1, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a finger stretcher as depicted in its seven figures (D980,990 S, p. 1, DESCRIPTION). The design consists of a wrist strap assembly connected to a central body, from which five arms radiate outwards, each terminating in a ring designed to hold a finger. The protected visual appearance is defined by the specific shapes, proportions, and overall configuration of these elements as a whole (D980,990 S, Figs. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product's "unique and innovative design" has made it "very popular" and "instantly recognizable" among consumers (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the patent's single claim (Compl. ¶26).
• The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (D980,990 S, p. 1, CLAIM). In a design patent, the "claim" is understood to be the visual design embodied in the drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Infringing Products" are identified as unauthorized "finger stretching apparatus" sold by Defendants on various e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are alleged to be "the same product that infringes" the Plaintiff's design (Compl. ¶22). They are sold through "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others, which target consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The complaint includes an image of a product, described as "Copyrighted Works," being worn on a hand, with various resistance levels (e.g., "21LB," "17LB") marked on the finger portions (Compl. p.8). This image shows a finger stretcher in a marketed context, suggesting its use as an exercise device (Compl. p.8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Because this is a design patent case, infringement is assessed based on the "ordinary observer" test, rather than a limitation-by-limitation analysis of a utility claim. The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the patented design. A perspective view of the patented design is provided in the complaint to illustrate the claimed ornamental features (Compl. p.5, FIG. 1).

D980,990 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue will be the scope of the patented design. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as the specific design shown in the '990 Patent's drawings, as viewed by an ordinary observer.
• Technical Questions: What specific visual evidence will be presented to compare the accused products to the patented design? The complaint itself does not provide side-by-side comparisons, which will be a necessary step in litigation. The legal test for design patent infringement also considers the prior art, which raises the question of what prior art exists and how it might limit the scope of the claimed design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, there are no "terms" to construe in the traditional sense. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's drawings.

• The "Term": The "ornamental design" as a whole.
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the scope of the visual design protected by the patent. The key question for the court is not the definition of a word, but the interpretation of the drawings and the overall visual impression they create. Practitioners may focus on this because any differences between the accused product and the patent drawings will be scrutinized to determine if they are significant enough to avoid infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent's drawings are the primary evidence. All lines in the drawings of the '990 Patent appear to be solid, indicating that all depicted features are part of the claimed design.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the core of the protected design is the overall configuration—a wrist strap connected to a central body with five radiating arms ending in rings—and that minor variations in surface ornamentation or proportion do not change the substantially similar overall appearance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the design is limited to the exact shapes, contours, and proportions shown in Figures 1-7 of the '990 Patent. Any perceptible deviation in the curvature of the arms, the shape of the central body, or the dimensions of the rings could be argued to create a different overall visual impression, thus avoiding infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" (Compl. ¶22) and operate from a "common source" (Compl. ¶19). The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent (Compl. p.16, ¶1(b)).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is explicitly alleged (Compl. ¶23). The factual basis appears to be the allegation that Defendants knowingly and willfully participate in a collective enterprise to sell infringing products while using tactics, such as multiple aliases and offshore accounts, to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶19, ¶21, ¶22).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with any relevant prior art, is the overall ornamental design of the accused finger stretchers substantially the same as the design claimed in the '990 patent?
2. A significant practical question will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: As the case targets a schedule of unidentified foreign entities operating under various online aliases, a central challenge will be identifying the Defendants, establishing personal jurisdiction, and effectuating any discovery, injunction, or monetary judgment.
3. A potential legal question may arise regarding standing and inventorship: Does the fact that the patent is subject to an approved but not-yet-issued Certificate of Correction to add an inventor create a viable defense regarding patent validity or the Plaintiff's standing to sue for infringement that occurred prior to the correction?