Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Quanxindi Technology Co. Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-10193, N.D. Ill., 10/14/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities and shipping products to consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce stores sell broom products that infringe the ornamental design of Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer cleaning products sector, specifically concerning the ornamental appearance of brooms or squeegees sold online.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a list of unidentified "Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations" operating under various online "Seller Aliases." This procedural approach is often used to combat diffuse, pseudonymous online sellers by seeking early injunctive relief against the seller accounts on third-party e-commerce platforms.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2022-01-01 (approx.)	Plaintiff alleges it began selling its "Quanxindi Products" in the U.S.
2022-06-30	U.S. Patent No. D991,607 application/priority date
2023-07-04	U.S. Patent No. D991,607 issues
2024-10-14	Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D991,607 - “Broom”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D991,607, “Broom,” issued July 4, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamentation, not function. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, specifically a broom ('607 Patent, Title, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a distinct visual appearance for a broom. Key ornamental features shown in the figures include a multi-part, segmented cylindrical handle with a loop at the top end, and a flat, wide head with a squeegee-like blade ('607 Patent, Figs. 1, 6, 7). An exploded view clarifies the modular construction of the handle ('607 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique and innovative design" has made the Plaintiff's products "very popular" among consumers (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a broom, as shown and described." ('607 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's nine drawings, which depict the overall shape and specific surface ornamentation of the broom from various perspectives ('607 Patent, Figs. 1-9).
• The complaint asserts infringement of the single design claim (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "broom apparatus" referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are sold by Defendants through "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Walmart (Compl. ¶11).
• Plaintiff alleges these online stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and use marketing strategies and images that make it difficult to distinguish them from authorized sellers (Compl. ¶¶8, 14). The complaint provides an image of the patented design, which it states is representative of the "Quanxindi Design" that Defendants are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶7). A table in the complaint provides a perspective view of the patented broom design (Compl. ¶7).
• The complaint does not provide images of the accused products themselves for direct comparison.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a side-by-side visual comparison between the patented design and an accused product. The infringement theory is presented narratively.

The central allegation is that the Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Quanxindi Design disclosed and claimed in U.S. Patent No. D991,607" (Compl. ¶24). The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused article thinking it was the patented design.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The primary issue is factual and evidentiary. The court's analysis will depend entirely on a visual comparison of the accused products with the figures in the ’607 Patent. Since the complaint does not include images of the accused products, the degree of visual similarity remains an open question.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will focus on the overall visual impression of the products. A key question for the court will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" in appearance as the design claimed in the ’607 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be confused ('607 Patent, Figs. 1-9).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the design as shown in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of text is rare. The interpretation focuses on the visual elements of the design as a whole.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a broom, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on the scope of the visual design protected by the patent figures. Practitioners may focus on which aspects of the design are ornamental and which might be considered purely functional, as functional elements are not protected by a design patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of the segmented handle, the top loop, and the specific head shape. An argument for infringement could be made even if minor details differ, so long as the overall appearance is substantially similar ('607 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s use of broken lines in the figures explicitly disclaims those portions as part of the claimed design ('607 Patent, Description). This limits the scope of protection to only the elements shown in solid lines. Further, the title "Broom" could raise questions if the accused product is exclusively marketed as a different type of tool, such as a "floor squeegee," although the visual appearance is paramount ('607 Patent, Title).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶24) and aiding and abetting (Prayer for Relief, ¶1.b), but it does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendants might have induced or contributed to infringement by others beyond their own direct sales activities.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶20). Plaintiff seeks treble damages for this alleged willful conduct (Prayer for Relief, ¶4).

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

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central substantive question will be one of visual comparison: are the accused products sold by the Defendants "substantially the same" as the design depicted in the ’607 Patent? The outcome will depend on visual evidence of the accused products, which was not provided in the complaint.
2. Procedural Viability: A threshold issue is the case's structure, which targets numerous unidentified e-commerce operators. A key question will be whether the Plaintiff can successfully establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants and maintain the action against a diverse group of online sellers who allegedly form an interrelated network (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
3. Damages and Remedies: Should infringement be found, a critical question will be the calculation of damages. The complaint seeks Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy unique to design patents (Prayer for Relief, ¶5). This raises the stakes significantly beyond a reasonable royalty and will be a key focus of the litigation if it proceeds to the damages phase.