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" (Jurisdictions Undisclosed)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05783, N.D. Ill., 07/09/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores and shipping products into the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell finger stretching devices that infringe the ornamental design claimed in Plaintiff’s U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology falls within the field of physical therapy and exercise equipment, specifically devices designed for hand and finger resistance training and rehabilitation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies this action as being related to ten previously filed cases concerning the same intellectual property. It also notes that a Petition for a Certificate of Correction has been approved by the USPTO 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

U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990 - "FINGER STRETCHER"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990, titled "FINGER STRETCHER," issued on March 14, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: While design patents do not contain a background section describing a problem, the patent's title and the complaint frame the article as a "finger stretcher," a device for physical exercise or rehabilitation (Compl. ¶7; '990 Patent, (54)). The complaint suggests a market need for high-quality, distinctively designed finger stretchers (Compl. ¶7-8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a finger stretcher, not its functional characteristics (’990 Patent, CLAIM). The design consists of a wrist strap connected to a central body from which five arms radiate outwards. Each arm terminates in a ring designed to accommodate a fingertip. The visual impression is defined by the specific proportions, curvatures, and spatial arrangement of these components as depicted in the patent’s figures ('990 Patent, Fig. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product's "unique and innovative design" has made it "instantly recognizable" and a symbol of quality among consumers (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 visual features depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1 through 7 of the patent, which include:
  • A wrist-mounted configuration with a strap.
  • A central body from which five arms emanate.
  • The specific splayed arrangement and length of the five arms.
  • The circular shape of the rings at the end of each arm.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "finger stretching apparatus" sold by the Defendants, collectively referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5). These products are allegedly sold through various e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants sell products that are visually indistinct from Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶26). A photograph included in the complaint, identified as depicting Plaintiff's "Copyrighted Works," also appears to serve as an exemplar of the accused product design. This photograph shows a finger stretching device that functions via resistance, with markings such as "21LB" and "17LB" indicating different strength levels (Compl. p.8). The complaint alleges that Defendants' e-commerce stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶5, ¶16). This image, showing a product being worn on a hand, provides visual context for the product's use (Compl. p.8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' products infringe the single claim of the ’990 patent. In design patent cases, 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 one. The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory is based on a direct visual comparison.

A perspective view from the patent is included in the complaint, which shows the claimed ornamental design for the finger stretcher (Compl. p.5, FIG. 1).

'990 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central infringement question will be the application of the ordinary observer test. The court will need to determine if the accused products sold by the Defendants are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the design claimed in the ’990 Patent. This analysis will focus on the design as a whole, not on a comparison of discrete features.
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary challenge for the Plaintiff may be evidentiary. It must demonstrate that each of the numerous, anonymously-operated "Schedule A" defendants sold a product, and that the specific design of that product infringes the ’990 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings, and formal construction of written terms is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the patent's title may be relevant.

• The Term: "finger stretcher"
• Context and Importance: This term, from the patent's title, defines the "article of manufacture" to which the ornamental design is applied. Its interpretation is relevant for determining the scope of prior art that an ordinary observer would be presumed to know, which in turn provides context for the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the field of prior art informs how different or similar the accused and patented designs appear.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides no explicit definition, which may support using the term's plain and ordinary meaning: any device used for the purpose of stretching fingers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the scope of the term, for purposes of this patent, is implicitly defined by the specific visual characteristics of the device shown in Figures 1-7, limiting the relevant prior art to devices with a similar overall configuration (’990 Patent, Figs. 1-7).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of both direct and indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26), and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Prayer ¶1.b). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations detailing how Defendants induced or contributed to infringement by a third party, focusing instead on the Defendants' own acts of making, using, and selling.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement was willful (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is based on assertions that the Defendants operate as a "collective enterprise" (Compl. ¶33), knowingly and willfully manufacture and sell infringing products (Compl. ¶22), and use tactics such as multiple aliases and offshore accounts to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, which suggests knowledge of their infringing conduct (Compl. ¶19, ¶21).

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

1. A question of Substantial Similarity: The case's outcome will hinge on the core design patent infringement test: Is the overall ornamental design of the products sold by the Defendants substantially the same as the design claimed in the '990 Patent? The resolution will depend on a visual comparison from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser of such goods.

2. A question of Attribution and Evidence: A critical procedural and evidentiary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to connect each of the numerous, and allegedly anonymous, "Schedule A" defendants to the actual sale of a specific product and to prove that the design of that product is infringing. The viability of this type of multi-defendant e-commerce enforcement action itself presents a central issue.