Shenzhen Linsky Intelligent Control Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Linsky Intelligent Control Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (China and other foreign countries)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Y. Liu, Esq.; Sarah Ryan, Esq.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08177, N.D. Ill., 09/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities who may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce stores operated by Defendants on platforms like Amazon and Aliexpress are selling "counterfeit" clamps that infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a clamp, a type of tool used for fastening or holding objects, often in crafting or manufacturing contexts.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,032,351 S - "Clamp"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,032,351 S, titled "Clamp," issued on June 25, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem in the manner of a utility patent; instead, they protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture." The patent addresses the need for a visually distinct clamp design.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a clamp as depicted in its figures (’351 Patent, Figs. 1-10). The design features a generally pentagonal, ring-like body with a hinge at the top and a clasping mechanism at the bottom. A key aspect of the claimed design is the textured surface on the interior faces of the clasping mechanism (’351 Patent, Fig. 10). The patent explicitly disclaims the handles, which are shown in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the protected design (’351 Patent, p. 3, "DESCRIPTION").
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is distinctive, unique, and instantly recognizable to the purchasing public, serving as an indicator of source for Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶8, 10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a clamp, as shown and described" (’351 Patent, col. 2:6-7).
• The essential visual elements of this design claim are defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
  • The overall pentagonal shape of the main body.
  • The circular hinge element at the top apex.
  • The break in the body at the bottom, forming two opposing ends for clasping.
  • The specific raised, grid-like texture on the inner surface of the clasping ends.
• The complaint does not assert any other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Products" and "counterfeit products" in the form of clamps sold by the numerous Defendants through e-commerce stores on Amazon and Aliexpress (Compl. ¶¶2, 12, 24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate "fully interactive e-commerce stores" to sell these infringing clamps to consumers in the United States, including within the Northern District of Illinois (Compl. ¶12).
• Plaintiff alleges the Defendants’ products are "inferior imitations" of its authorized products and that Defendants design their e-commerce stores to appear as if they are selling genuine goods (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that the products are manufactured by a "common source" (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element comparison. Instead, it advances a holistic infringement theory based on the legal standard for design patent infringement. The central allegation is that Defendants' products embody a design so similar to the patented design that it would deceive an ordinary observer.

Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants slavish copying of that design is likely to cause confusion to an ordinary observer, such that such a person may buy a copycat product from one of the Defendants thinking it comes from Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint states that the infringing products "are compared directly with the claimed design in the ‘D351 Patent (Exhibit B)" (Compl. ¶12). However, Exhibit B was not included with the provided complaint document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’351 Patent, from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused clamps incorporate the specific combination of visual features shown in the patent's solid lines, including the pentagonal body shape and the particular grid-like texture on the clasping surfaces. The infringement analysis will disregard the design of the handles on both the patented and accused products, as the handles are disclaimed from the patent’s scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, there are no traditional "claim terms" to construe. The "claim" is the design itself, as illustrated in the drawings. The central issue of construction is determining the scope of the claimed design based on the figures.

The Term

• "The ornamental design for a clamp"

Context and Importance

• The scope of this design claim is defined entirely by the visuals in the patent figures. A critical aspect of this construction is the distinction between elements shown in solid lines (which are part of the claimed design) and those in broken lines (which are not). Practitioners will focus on this distinction because it defines the boundaries of the intellectual property right.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the overall visual impression of the design, not isolated features. An interpretation could be advanced that any clamp with a similar pentagonal body and textured clasping surface creates a substantially similar overall impression, regardless of minor differences in proportion or finish.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses a very specific set of ornamental features in combination, including the precise shape of the pentagonal body, the appearance of the hinge, and the specific diamond-grid texture on the clasping surfaces (’351 Patent, Fig. 10). A narrower interpretation would require an accused product to replicate this combination of features closely for infringement to be found. The disclaimer of the handles via broken lines explicitly narrows the scope of the protected design to the clamp body itself (’351 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• While the single count in the complaint is for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any products as genuine products covered by the ‘D351 Patent" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendants have "knowingly and willfully used... the ‘D351 Patent" (Compl. ¶22). However, it does not plead specific facts demonstrating that any Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The allegation appears to be based on the general conduct of selling what are alleged to be "counterfeit" and "copycat" products (Compl. ¶¶2, 10).

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

1. A Question of Visual Similarity: Will the accused products, when viewed by an ordinary observer, be considered substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’351 Patent? The outcome will depend on a holistic comparison of the overall visual impression, focusing only on the features depicted in solid lines in the patent’s drawings.
2. An Evidentiary and Enforcement Question: Given the complaint's structure targeting numerous, allegedly anonymous foreign entities ("Schedule A Defendants"), a central challenge will be for the Plaintiff to effectively serve, obtain jurisdiction over, and enforce any judgment against each distinct defendant operating through various e-commerce platforms.
3. A Question of Damages: If infringement is found, a key issue will be determining the appropriate remedy. Plaintiff seeks both damages and Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy specific to design patent infringement that can be significantly larger than a reasonable royalty. Proving the profits attributable to each of the many anonymous infringers will present a significant evidentiary challenge.