DCT

1:24-cv-08111

Dongguan Saien Chuangke Technology Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Huamingjun Rubber Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08111, N.D. Ill., 04/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district, and that they have targeted business activities toward Illinois consumers through interactive e-commerce websites. Plaintiff also notes that Defendant Shenzhen Huamingjun Rubber Co. Ltd. has previously availed itself of jurisdiction in the district by filing a related Declaratory Judgment action.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ reusable water balloons infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a spherical toy water ball.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the consumer products market for reusable water balloons, which serve as a durable alternative to traditional, single-use latex water balloons.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Defendant Shenzhen Huamingjun Rubber Co. Ltd. previously filed a Declaratory Judgment action against Plaintiff Dongguan Saien Chuangke Technology Co. Ltd. in the same court, indicating Defendant's pre-existing awareness of the intellectual property dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-12-14 Earliest Priority Date for '929 and '861 Patents
2022-01-01 Plaintiff DSCT begins marketing SOPPYCID product (approx. date)
2022-09-20 Plaintiff DSCT's SOPPYCID Trademark Registers
2023-07-11 '929 Patent Application Filing Date
2024-01-01 Plaintiff DSCT grants exclusive license to Zuru (approx. date)
2024-02-22 '861 Patent Application Filing Date
2024-06-11 '929 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-09 '861 Patent Issue Date
2024-09-04 Plaintiff conducts Amazon search identifying accused listings
2025-04-28 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,030,929 - "Spherical Toy Water Ball," Issued June 11, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not articulate a technical problem; as a design patent, its purpose is to protect a product's unique ornamental appearance rather than its utilitarian features (Compl. ¶19).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual design of a "spherical toy water ball." The claimed design, illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a ball that opens into two hinged hemispheres. Key ornamental features include a distinctive pattern of intersecting wavy lines on the exterior surface and a series of concentric circular ridges on the interior of each hemisphere ('929 Patent, Figs. 1-3). The claim is strictly for the non-functional, visual characteristics shown in the drawings ('929 Patent, Claim, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this patented design is embodied in Plaintiffs' commercially sold "SOPPYCID" brand reusable water balloons, suggesting its importance is in providing a distinct market identity (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a spherical toy water ball, as shown and described." ('929 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of the design include:
    • A generally spherical overall shape when in a closed state.
    • An exterior surface pattern of intersecting, undulating lines.
    • A "clam-shell" construction of two hemispheres connected by a hinge.
    • An interior appearance defined by concentric circular ridges.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as design patents do not have them.

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,034,861 - "Toy Water Ball," Issued July 9, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the '929 Patent, this patent protects the ornamental, rather than functional, aspects of a product design (Compl. ¶22).
  • The Patented Solution: The '861 patent claims the ornamental design for a "toy water ball" and depicts two distinct embodiments. Both embodiments share the hinged, two-hemisphere structure with interior ridges seen in the '929 patent ('861 Patent, Figs. 2, 4). They differ in their exterior surface ornamentation: the first embodiment features a wavy line pattern, while the second features a more jagged, star-like pattern ('861 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The claim covers the specific appearances shown in the patent's drawings ('861 Patent, Claim).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this design is also covered by the "SOPPYCID" brand, indicating its value lies in creating a unique and recognizable product appearance (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a toy water ball, as shown and described." ('861 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential visual elements of the design include:
    • A generally spherical overall shape when closed.
    • Two alternative exterior surface patterns: one with wavy lines and one with jagged, star-like lines.
    • A hinged, two-hemisphere construction.
    • An interior view characterized by concentric circular ridges.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are identified as "knock-offs of Plaintiff's SOPPYCID water balloons" sold by Defendants through various Amazon storefronts (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18, 21, 24).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The products are reusable water balloons that are allegedly "identical to Plaintiffss products" (Compl. ¶30). Representative images from Defendants' webpages show a hinged, spherical product that opens into two halves for filling with water (Compl. ¶21). One such image depicts the product being opened and dipped into water, held in a user's hands (Compl. ¶21, p. 6). The complaint alleges these products are sold on Amazon, and that Defendants use Plaintiffs' "SOPPYCID" trademark as a keyword to attract customers searching for Plaintiffs' brand (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The core of the design patent infringement analysis is the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

Claim Element (Visual Feature from the Design) Alleged Infringing Appearance Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of a spherical toy water ball, comprised of two hinged hemispheres. The accused product is a spherical object that opens into two hinged hemispheres, creating a substantially similar overall visual impression. ¶21 '929 Patent, Figs. 1, 2
An interior view showing concentric circular ridges within each hemisphere. The interior of the accused product, as shown in product images, displays prominent circular rings that are visually similar to the claimed design. ¶21 '929 Patent, Fig. 2
An exterior surface ornamentation characterized by a pattern of intersecting wavy lines. The complaint alleges direct infringement of the design but does not provide clear visual evidence of the exterior pattern on the accused products. ¶¶19, 21 '929 Patent, Fig. 1
Claim Element (Visual Feature from the Design) Alleged Infringing Appearance Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of a toy water ball, comprised of two hinged hemispheres. The accused product's hinged, spherical shape creates an overall visual appearance that is substantially similar to the patented design. ¶24 '861 Patent, Figs. 1-4
An interior view showing concentric circular ridges within each hemisphere. Product images show that the interior of the accused product contains circular rings, creating an appearance similar to the patented design's interior. A photograph shows multiple accused products in a bin, reinforcing this interior appearance (Compl. ¶24, p. 8). ¶24 '861 Patent, Figs. 2, 4
An exterior surface ornamentation as shown in the embodiments (wavy or jagged lines). The complaint alleges infringement of the claimed design but does not include images that clearly depict the specific exterior surface pattern of the accused products. ¶¶22, 24 '861 Patent, Figs. 1, 3
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: The primary infringement question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer. A potential issue for the Plaintiff at the pleading stage is that the complaint's images focus heavily on the products' interior appearance. The exterior surface ornamentation is a key feature of the patents, but its presence on the accused products is asserted rather than clearly shown in the provided visuals (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 24). The comparison will likely depend on the introduction of the actual accused products into evidence.
    • Scope Question: The analysis will raise the question of which aspects of the design are ornamental versus functional. Defendants may argue that features such as the spherical shape, the hinged two-part construction, and the interior sealing ridges are dictated by function and should be disregarded in the infringement analysis, thereby narrowing the scope of the patent protection to only the specific surface patterns.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, rather than textual descriptions. However, the distinction between functional and ornamental aspects is a critical issue of claim scope.

  • The Term: "ornamental design"
  • Context and Importance: The central dispute in many design patent cases is the line between protected ornamental features and unprotected functional features. The scope of the '929 and '861 patents will depend on which elements are deemed ornamental. Practitioners may focus on this term because if key features are found to be primarily functional, they are given less weight in the infringement analysis, making it more difficult for the patentee to prove infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (More Features are Ornamental): Plaintiffs may argue that while the product is a functional "toy water ball," the specific aesthetic choices—such as the particular shape and pattern of the wavy lines, the smooth contours, and the visual appearance of the interior ridges—are arbitrary and non-functional choices that create a unique visual appeal protected by the patents ('929 Patent, Figs. 1-3; '861 Patent, Figs. 1-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (More Features are Functional): Defendants may argue that the basic form of the invention is dictated by its function. A sphere is a common shape for a ball; the two-part, hinged design is necessary for a reusable, self-sealing mechanism; and the interior ridges are functional sealing elements. This argument would suggest that the scope of the "ornamental design" is limited to only the specific, non-functional surface patterns applied to this otherwise functional object.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful and in "reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶38). This allegation is supported, at least as to Defendant Shenzhen Huamingjun Rubber Co. Ltd., by the fact that it had filed a prior Declaratory Judgment action against one of the Plaintiffs, which establishes actual knowledge of the patent dispute (Compl. ¶17).

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

  1. Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A core issue will be one of claim scope: to what extent are the visual features of the water balloons, such as their spherical shape, hinged construction, and interior ridges, dictated by function? The court's determination of this issue will define the scope of the protectable design and shape the entire infringement analysis.
  2. The Ordinary Observer Test: The ultimate question will be one of visual comparison: are the accused products, when viewed in their entirety and in light of the prior art, substantially the same in ornamental appearance as the designs claimed in the '929 and '861 patents? This will likely require a side-by-side comparison of the physical products with the patent figures.
  3. Evidentiary Proof: A key evidentiary question will be whether the exterior surface ornamentation of the accused products, a prominent feature of the patented designs, is in fact present and substantially similar. The complaint's allegations of infringement currently rely more on assertions of "knock-off" status than on clear visual evidence of this specific feature.