Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dongguan Shengchuang Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction(s) unknown, believed to be primarily People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03956, N.D. Ill., 05/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged targeting of business activities to U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores and the shipment of products to residents of the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are making, using, selling, and/or importing a "double hook apparatus" that infringes Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue is a simple mechanical fastener, specifically the ornamental design of a double-sided hook used for organization or mounting.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, a common procedural vehicle used to sue a large number of often-anonymous online sellers who are alleged to be part of an interrelated infringement network. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D976,690 - "Double Hook"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D976,690, titled “Double Hook,” issued January 31, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'690 patent does not describe a technical problem or its solution in a background or specification section. The patent’s value lies in protecting a specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture (D'690 Patent, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "double hook" (D'690 Patent, CLAIM). The design, depicted across seven figures, consists of a central, flat base from which two opposing, C-shaped hooks emerge (D'690 Patent, FIG. 1, 4, 5). The overall visual impression is that of a compact, symmetrical, dual-hook device. The claim protects the specific visual appearance shown in the drawings, not the functional aspects of being a hook (D'690 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying the patented design have become "very popular" and "instantly recognizable" to the public due to their "unique and innovative design" (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• As is standard for design patents, the D'690 patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a double hook, as shown and described" (D'690 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in Figures 1-7 of the patent. The infringement analysis will be based on the overall visual similarity between the accused product and these drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "the double hook apparatus," referred to generally as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are fastening hooks sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Walmart (Compl. ¶6, 11). The complaint alleges these products are unauthorized copies that are sold through storefronts that use common templates, misspellings, and payment methods, suggesting a common source (Compl. ¶17). The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design, which it alleges the accused products infringe. This visual, a reproduction of the patent's Figure 1, depicts a double-sided hook with two C-shaped arms (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement allegations are presented narratively. The core of the infringement claim is that the Defendants' products embody an ornamental design that is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'690 patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central question for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused device believing it was the patented design. The complaint alleges the accused products are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" (Compl. ¶4). The dispute will hinge on a visual comparison of the Defendants' actual products against the drawings in the D'690 patent.
• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint asserts that the accused products infringe but does not provide side-by-side photographic evidence comparing an accused product to the patented design. The primary evidentiary question will be whether the products actually sold by the Defendants are, in fact, visually indistinguishable from the drawings of the D'690 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is minimal, as the drawings themselves typically define the claim scope.

The Term: "double hook"

• Context and Importance: This term, from the patent’s title and claim, identifies the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its construction is important for defining the general category of the product at issue. However, practitioners may focus less on the term itself and more on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as depicted in the patent's figures, which is the controlling standard for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties are unlikely to dispute the meaning of "double hook." The patent does not provide a textual definition that would broaden the term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim is for the design "as shown and described" (D'690 Patent, CLAIM). This language inherently limits the scope of the claim to the specific visual embodiment depicted in Figures 1-7, preventing it from covering all conceivable "double hooks."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and, in its prayer for relief, seeks to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer ¶1.b). The factual basis alleged is that the Defendants work in "active concert" to sell the infringing products through a network of online stores (Compl. ¶20).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶20). This appears to be primarily an allegation of infringement being willful from the outset of the infringing conduct, rather than one based on pre-suit notice.

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

1. A question of visual identity: The central issue will be factual: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "double hook" products substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'690 patent, from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The case's outcome will depend almost entirely on a visual comparison between the defendants' products and the patent's drawings.
2. A question of enforcement and jurisdiction: A significant practical challenge will be procedural. Can the Plaintiff successfully serve, establish personal jurisdiction over, and ultimately enforce a judgment against a diffuse network of foreign-based defendants who are alleged to be operating under multiple, difficult-to-trace aliases and moving funds to offshore accounts?