DCT
1:24-cv-06917
Changsha Hongda Network Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Changsha Hongda Network Technology 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-06917, N.D. Ill., 08/07/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois, operating fully interactive commercial internet stores, and shipping products to Illinois residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of cup covers infringe a U.S. design patent for an ornamental cup cover design.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer product accessories market, specifically concerning holders and carriers for portable beverage containers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history. The action is structured as a case against numerous, initially unnamed e-commerce operators identified on a sealed "Schedule A," a common procedure for targeting diffuse online sellers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-01-01 (approx.) | Plaintiff began selling "Hongda Products" in the U.S. |
| 2024-01-11 | U.S. Patent No. D1,026,446 application filed |
| 2024-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. D1,026,446 issued |
| 2024-08-07 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,026,446 - "CUP COVER"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,026,446 ("the '446 Patent"), "CUP COVER", issued May 14, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products are known for their "distinctive patented designs," which consumers recognize and associate with quality, suggesting the goal was to create a unique and identifiable product appearance in the marketplace (Compl. ¶7).
- The Patented Solution: The '446 Patent protects the specific, ornamental, non-functional design of a cup cover. The claimed design, illustrated in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a body that wraps around a cup form, featuring a prominent, generally rectangular front pouch with a horizontal zipper, a vertical attachment loop on one side, and another attachment point on the opposite side (’446 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The patent explicitly disclaims any design aspects shown in broken lines, such as the cup itself or an attachable shoulder strap, which are presented for environmental context only (’446 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that products styled after these designs are associated with the "quality and innovation" consumers expect from the Plaintiff's brand, making the design a key market differentiator (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the '446 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a cup cover, as shown and described" (’446 Patent, CLAIM).
- The protected design consists of the specific visual features depicted in solid lines in Figures 1-10 of the patent, including:
- The overall shape and proportions of the cover.
- A prominent, horizontally-zippered front pouch.
- Side loops for attachment.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Infringing Products" are identified as "cup cover apparatus" sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under the "Seller Aliases" listed in Schedule A (Compl. ¶4, ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are accessories for holding beverage cups (Compl. ¶4). The complaint alleges that these products are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" as Plaintiff's and that they infringe the "Hongda Design" embodied in the '446 Patent (Compl. ¶4, ¶20). The complaint includes an image from the '446 Patent, FIG. 1, to represent the "patented design" that is allegedly infringed (Compl. ¶7, p.4). The complaint alleges that the e-commerce stores selling these products are designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges direct infringement by asserting that Defendants sell products featuring the patented design. The complaint provides an image of the patented design's FIG. 1 to illustrate the allegedly infringed design (Compl. ¶7, p.4).
'446 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression of the ornamental design for a cup cover as shown and described in the patent. | Defendants are accused of making, using, offering for sale, and selling "Infringing Products" that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed" in the '446 Patent. | ¶24 | CLAIM; FIGS. 1-8 |
| A prominent, generally rectangular front pouch with a horizontal zipper closure. | The complaint presents FIG. 1, which prominently displays this feature, as the "Hongda Design" that Defendants' products allegedly infringe. | ¶7 (p.4) | FIG. 1 |
| A vertical attachment loop on one side of the cover and a corresponding attachment point on the other. | The infringement allegation covers the entire ornamental design, which includes the shape, placement, and appearance of the side attachment points as shown in the patent's figures. | ¶24 | FIGS. 5, 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Similarity: As the complaint does not provide side-by-side photographic comparisons of the accused products with the patented design, a central question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused products are, in fact, substantially the same in overall visual appearance as the '446 Patent design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will focus exclusively on the elements shown in solid lines in the patent figures. The court will need to filter out the unclaimed environmental elements (the cup and strap shown in broken lines) when comparing the accused products to the patented design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, formal claim construction is rare, as the claim is generally understood to be the design as depicted in the drawings. The analysis instead turns on the application of the ordinary observer test. However, the scope of what is claimed versus what is disclaimed is a critical threshold issue.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a cup cover"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of this "term," which is defined by the patent's drawings. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between claimed subject matter (solid lines) and disclaimed environment (broken lines) is absolute and will define the boundaries of the infringement comparison.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim protects the "overall visual impression" of the design, not an itemized list of features. An accused design with minor differences may still infringe if it appropriates the novel ornamental features and creates the same overall appearance (’446 Patent, CLAIM).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification contains an explicit disclaimer: "None of the broken lines form part of the claimed design" (’446 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This statement strictly limits the protected design to the visual features of the cover itself, excluding the illustrative cup and strap shown in FIGS. 9 and 10. Any infringement analysis must disregard the appearance of the cup or strap with which an accused product is sold or used.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. p.12, ¶1(b)). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how any defendant knowingly induced or contributed to infringement by another party.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶21), asserting they acted "knowingly and willfully" in concert (Compl. ¶20). As the patent was issued less than three months before the complaint was filed, this allegation may primarily rely on post-filing notice of infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: will a side-by-side comparison show that the accused products sold by Defendants are substantially the same as the '446 patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing one believing it to be the other?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of sale and identity: can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove not only that the specific, anonymous e-commerce storefronts sold infringing products into the jurisdiction, but also that the products sold are visually indistinguishable from the patented design, given the lack of photographic evidence in the complaint itself?
- Finally, the case will hinge on the application of the ordinary observer test: assuming there are minor variations between the accused products and the patented design, the court will have to determine whether those differences are sufficient to alter the overall visual impression or if the accused products have appropriated the novel aspects of the design, leading to infringement.