DCT
1:24-cv-09663
Kitsch LLC v. Chengduhechuangjietongdianzishangwuyouxiangongsi
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kitsch LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Chengduhechuangjietongdianzishangwuyouxiangongsi d/b/a LEAFINITY (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BEW LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09663, N.D. Ill., 10/07/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a Chinese entity, which under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 may be sued in any judicial district. Personal jurisdiction is alleged based on Defendant targeting and selling products to consumers in Illinois through a commercial Amazon.com storefront.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s soap bag products infringe a U.S. Design Patent covering the ornamental design of a soap bag.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns consumer personal care accessories, specifically mesh bags designed to hold and preserve bars of soap, shampoo, or conditioner.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provides notice of its patents, including the patent-in-suit, via a virtual marking webpage. No other prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-08-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D926,471 Filing Date |
| 2021-08-03 | U.S. Design Patent No. D926,471 Issue Date |
| 2024-10-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D926,471 - "Soap bag"
- Issued: August 3, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead claims a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, a soap bag ('471 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a soap bag. Key ornamental features illustrated in the figures include a generally rectangular body with a distinctive asymmetrical opening, where one side of the opening extends higher than the other, creating a handle or loop ('471 Patent, FIG. 1-3). The design also features a textured surface pattern, depicted as a grid, and a small rectangular tab element projecting from one side ('471 Patent, FIG. 2). The design's top view shows an elliptical opening formed by the two sides of the bag ('471 Patent, FIG. 4).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges Plaintiff sells a product that practices the patented design, suggesting its commercial value resides in its unique aesthetic which consumers may associate with the Plaintiff's brand (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a soap bag, as shown and described" ('471 Patent, col. 2:57-59).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's seven figures, which depict the bag from front, rear, top, bottom, and side perspectives ('471 Patent, Description, col. 2:60-67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Infringing Products" are identified as soap bags sold by Defendant under the "LEAFINITY" brand on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶12, 16). The complaint lists several specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) for these products (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are soap bags used for personal care, such as holding solid shampoo and conditioner bars (Compl. ¶¶15-16). The complaint includes a screenshot of an accused product listing described as a "Shampoo and Conditioner Set for Thinning Hair" that includes the bag (Compl. ¶15). The complaint asserts that Defendant's "Leafinity-branded store appears to be selling genuine products" but is, in fact, selling products that infringe Plaintiff's patent (Compl. ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegation for a design patent rests on 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 presents a side-by-side visual comparison to support its claim (Compl. ¶22).
The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product, which shows the accused bag holding a bar of soap, cinched at the top, and bearing a "LEAFINTY" brand tag (Compl. ¶22, p. 6).
’471 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature (from patent figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from complaint visuals) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression of the soap bag design as a whole. | The complaint alleges that, to an ordinary observer, the accused Infringing Products are "substantially the same as the design patented in the ‘471 Patent." | ¶23 | col. 2:57-59 |
| An asymmetrical opening where one side extends higher than the other to form a loop or handle. | The accused product is depicted with a similar asymmetrical opening, creating a loop through which a smaller handle can be passed to close the bag. | ¶22 | FIG. 1-2 |
| A generally rectangular main body with a visible mesh or grid-like surface texture. | The accused product has a rectangular body made of a visible mesh material. | ¶22 | FIG. 2 |
| A small, rectangular tab element projecting from the side of the bag body. | The accused product is shown with a branded rectangular tab ("LEAFINTY") projecting from its side in a similar position. | ¶22 | FIG. 2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether an ordinary observer would find the two designs substantially the same. The analysis may focus on whether differences between the designs, such as the precise curvature of the opening or the presence of the "LEAFINTY" brand name on the accused product's tag, are sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement.
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be a direct visual comparison of the designs. The depiction of the accused product in the complaint shows it in an "engaged" or closed position, which may obscure some design features (Compl. ¶22). The comparison may depend on how the accused product looks in an un-cinched, flat state, similar to how it is depicted in Figure 2 of the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction is typically a matter of describing the claimed ornamental features as depicted in the patent's drawings rather than defining specific words. The central "term" is the visual design itself.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a soap bag, as shown."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the visual scope of the design claimed in the patent's figures. The court's interpretation of what constitutes the core, protectable aesthetic of the design versus minor, unprotectable details will be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the overall shape—the asymmetrical top opening and rectangular body—is the dominant feature of the design, and minor variations in texture or tab size do not change the overall visual impression conveyed to an ordinary observer ('471 Patent, FIG. 1-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the specific grid-like surface texture and the precise proportions and placement of the side tab are integral, limiting features of the claimed design ('471 Patent, FIG. 2). Any deviation in these specific elements in an accused product could be argued to create a different overall visual appearance.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant and associated parties from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the '471 Patent" (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the body of the complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement by Defendant's own making, using, selling, and importing activities (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful" in a separate count. However, it requests that damages be increased up to three times pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, which is the statutory remedy for willful or egregious infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶4). It also alleges Plaintiff provides constructive notice of the patent via virtual marking, which may be used to support post-filing willfulness allegations (Compl. ¶27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Would an ordinary observer, comparing the patented design side-by-side with the accused LEAFINITY product, be deceived into believing the products are the same, or are the differences, such as the branding on the tag and potential variations in proportion, sufficient to create distinct visual impressions?
- A key evidentiary question will concern the impact of claimed features: The analysis will likely focus on whether the combination of the asymmetrical opening, the mesh texture, and the side tab creates a total ornamental effect that the accused product has appropriated, or if the accused product's design is distinguishable when viewed as a whole.