1:24-cv-05583
Flowbee Australia Pty Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flowbee Australia Pty Ltd and Beeinventive Pty Ltd (Australia)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint (primarily People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05583, N.D. Ill., 07/02/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants offering to sell and ship infringing products into the Northern District of Illinois, thereby committing acts of patent infringement and conducting business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are selling counterfeit beehive components that infringe Plaintiff's U.S. design patent for an artificial honeycomb frame.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to apiculture (beekeeping) equipment, specifically the design of frames used within a beehive to facilitate honey collection.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation involving these specific parties or the patent-in-suit. The action is brought against a schedule of largely anonymous online sellers, a common strategy in anti-counterfeiting enforcement actions.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-27 | '776 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015 | Plaintiff launches the "FLOW Hive" product |
| 2017-06-27 | U.S. Design Patent No. D790,776 S issues |
| 2024-07-02 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D790,776 S - COMPONENT FOR ARTIFICIAL HONEYCOMB
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D790,776 S, “COMPONENT FOR ARTIFICIAL HONEYCOMB,” issued June 27, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than function, the complaint frames the context for the patented design as part of an "industry-changing frame design that allows beekeepers to safely and efficiently extract honey without harming any bees" (Compl. ¶18).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "component for artificial honeycomb" as depicted in its figures (D’776 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design consists of an elongated, rectangular frame element featuring a repeating pattern of angled, partially-formed hexagonal cell walls along its primary faces. The complaint describes the commercial embodiment as a "partially-formed BPA- and BPS-free food grade plastic honeycomb with vertical channels that uses gravity to harvest honey" (Compl. ¶14).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying this design "have become enormously popular" and that the designs themselves "are broadly recognized by consumers as being sourced from Plaintiffs" (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "the ornamental design for component for artificial honeycomb, as shown" (D’776 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article as illustrated in Figures 1 through 8 of the patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "Counterfeit Products," specifically artificial honeycomb frames sold as part of "Beehive Kit[s]" and "Wooden Beekeeping House[s]" (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 48-49; p. 14-15). These products are allegedly sold by Defendants through various online marketplace accounts on platforms including AliExpress, Amazon, and eBay (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are components for beehives, intended to function as honeycomb frames for beekeeping (Compl. p. 14). The complaint alleges these are unauthorized "counterfeit" versions of Plaintiff's "FLOW Products" which are sold with the intent to trade on the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's brand and patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 46). The complaint provides an example of an accused product listing for a "Flows Hive Beehive Kit Automatic Wooden Bee Hive House Kit" sold online. The complaint shows a screenshot from an online marketplace listing an accused product from the brand "Lwestine" (Compl. ¶49, p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by 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 to be the patented design. The complaint's allegations center on a direct visual comparison.
The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison, placing figures from the '776 Patent next to images of the accused products to allege visual identity (Compl. ¶49, p. 13). The complaint further alleges that the "Counterfeit Products... bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Counterfeit Products were manufactured by and come from a common source" (Compl. ¶35). Another visual from the complaint shows a marketplace listing for an accused beehive kit, where the included honeycomb frames appear to incorporate the patented design (Compl. ¶49, p. 14). A third visual presents another "Exemplary Counterfeit Product," a "Flows Hive Beehive Complete Kit" from the brand "Adasea," which also appears to contain frames with the same design (Compl. p. 15).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental design of the accused honeycomb frames is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '776 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether minor differences between the patented design drawings and the manufactured accused products are sufficient to escape infringement. The court's analysis will depend on a comparison of the actual accused products to the patent's figures.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common, as the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall visual impression rather than the definition of individual words.
- The Term: "component for artificial honeycomb"
- Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent's title and claim defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its interpretation is important for framing the "ordinary observer" test and ensuring the comparison is made between articles of the same type.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent itself provides no textual definition beyond the title and the claim language. The primary and controlling evidence for the scope of the claimed design are the illustrations in Figures 1-8 (D’776 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The analysis will therefore depend almost entirely on a visual comparison between these figures and the accused articles, rather than a textual debate over the meaning of "component."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶48) and, in its prayer for relief, seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶73.e). However, the factual allegations in the complaint focus on direct infringement by the Defendants who are alleged to be making, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products (Compl. ¶48).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful (Compl. ¶50). The basis for this allegation is that Defendants have acted "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiffs' rights" by allegedly counterfeiting a product design that is "broadly recognized by consumers" and trading on Plaintiff's reputation (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, find the overall ornamental appearance of the accused honeycomb frames to be substantially the same as the design depicted in the '776 patent's figures?
- A significant procedural question will be one of liability and enforcement: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify the operators behind the "Schedule A" online stores, establish personal jurisdiction, and prove that each specific entity sold products that meet the legal standard for infringement?
- Should infringement be found, a key question will relate to damages calculation: The case will raise the issue of quantifying damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which allows a design patent owner to recover the infringer's total profit from the infringing sales, an option the Plaintiff has requested (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 79).