DCT
1:24-cv-03201
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unicorp 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” (Jurisdiction(s) unknown)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03201, N.D. Ill., 04/22/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through the operation of commercial online stores and the shipment of products to residents within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell finger stretching devices that infringe Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of finger and hand exercise devices, a consumer product category often used for physical therapy, athletic training, or general hand strength improvement.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies this case as related to nine previously filed lawsuits involving some of the same intellectual property, suggesting an ongoing enforcement campaign against online sellers. The complaint also notes that a Petition for a Certificate of Correction has been approved by the USPTO to add an additional inventor to the patent-in-suit, though the certificate has not yet issued.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-11-05 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D980,990 |
| 2023-03-14 | U.S. Patent No. D980,990 Issued |
| 2024-04-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990 - "Finger Stretcher"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990, titled "Finger Stretcher", issued March 14, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not describe a specific technical problem, as is typical for a design patent. The purpose of the underlying article is to serve as a "finger stretching apparatus" (Compl. ¶5). The patent itself protects the unique visual appearance of such a device.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for the finger stretcher. The design consists of a central body from which five arms radiate outwards, each terminating in a ring for a finger, coupled with an attached wrist strap assembly (’990 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The overall visual impression is created by the combination of the shapes, contours, and configuration of these elements as depicted in the patent's drawings (’990 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique and innovative design" is "instantly recognizable" and has driven the popularity of Plaintiff's products since at least 2021 (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (’990 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the seven figures in the patent, which show the design from perspective, front, back, left, right, top, and bottom views. Key ornamental features include:
- The overall configuration of a wrist-mounted base with five splayed arms.
- The specific profile and curvature of the arms connecting the base to the finger rings.
- The circular shape of the finger rings.
- The appearance of the wrist strap and its attachment point to the base.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" "finger stretching apparatus" sold by the unidentified Defendants, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress, which "target consumers in this Judicial District and throughout the United States" (Compl. ¶13). These online stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and often use Plaintiff's own imagery to market the infringing products (Compl. ¶5, ¶16). The complaint includes a photograph of what appears to be Plaintiff's commercial product, depicting the device in use with different resistance levels printed on the finger loops. (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’990 Patent. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint does not contain a detailed, element-by-element comparison, but rather a general allegation of infringement.
’990 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Ornamental Feature from D'990) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described. | Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design disclosed and claimed" in the patent. | ¶26 | Figs. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The central question will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the figures of the ’990 Patent. The dispute will turn on whether the two designs are substantially the same in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
- Role of Prior Art: The scope of the prior art for finger exercisers will be critical. If numerous similar designs predate the patent, the scope of protection afforded to the ’990 Patent’s design may be narrow, requiring a closer identity between the accused products and the patent drawings to support an infringement finding. The complaint does not address the prior art.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is typically not subject to construction of specific terms, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings "as shown and described." The complaint does not raise any issues that would suggest a dispute over claim construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26) and references "aiding, abetting, contributing to" in its prayer for relief (Prayer ¶1.b). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendants knowingly provided a component of an infringing product with instructions for an infringing use. The allegations are primarily focused on Defendants' own direct infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell products that infringe the Kunshengze Design (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Infringement under the Ordinary Observer Test: The case's outcome will depend on the application of the "ordinary observer" test. A dispositive question for the court will be whether, in light of the relevant prior art, the accused finger stretchers are substantially the same in overall visual appearance as the design claimed in the ’990 Patent.
- Impact of Prior Art: A key evidentiary question will be the scope of the prior art. The degree of similarity between the patented design and pre-existing finger stretchers will directly influence the breadth of protection the court affords the ’990 Patent and, consequently, how similar an accused product must be to be found infringing.
- Jurisdiction and Enforcement: Given that the defendants are unidentified foreign entities operating under aliases, a central procedural hurdle will be identifying the responsible parties, establishing personal jurisdiction over them, and effectuating any potential judgment, a challenge highlighted by the complaint's focus on Defendants' alleged concealment tactics (Compl. ¶12, ¶19).