Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce 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-11354, N.D. Ill., 11/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, and are involved in the sale and shipping of accused products to Illinois residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators, identified collectively as Defendants, infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a "finger stretching" exercise device.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to hand and finger exercise devices used for physical therapy, rehabilitation, or strength training.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies this action as being related to several earlier filed cases concerning the same intellectual property. It also notes that a Petition for Certificate of Correction was approved for the patent-in-suit to add an inventor, which can be relevant to ownership and standing.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D980,990 - "Finger Stretcher"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D980,990, "Finger Stretcher," issued March 14, 2023 (’990 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the specification does not contain a textual description of a technical problem (D’980,990 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The title, "Finger Stretcher," suggests the device is intended to provide a tool for finger extension exercises, addressing a need in physical therapy or fitness.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of the finger stretcher device. The claimed design consists of a wrist strap connected to a central body, from which five splayed arms extend, each terminating in a ring for holding a fingertip (’990 Patent, FIG. 1). The overall visual impression created by the specific shapes, proportions, and configuration of these elements constitutes the patented design.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the plaintiff's products, which embody the patented design, are known for their "unique and innovative design" and are "instantly recognizable" to the purchasing public (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" (’990 Patent, CLAIM).
• The elements of a design patent claim are the visual characteristics of the design as depicted in the patent's drawings. Key visual features of the ’990 Patent design include:
  • A wrist strap assembly.
  • A central body piece affixed to the strap.
  • Five arms extending from the central body in a splayed configuration.
  • Five rings, one at the terminus of each arm, for finger placement.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "the finger stretching apparatus" sold by Defendants under various "Seller Aliases" on e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶5). These are referred to collectively as the "Infringing Products."

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are alleged to be "unauthorized and unlicensed" finger stretchers sold to consumers in the United States via online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, and Walmart (Compl. ¶5, ¶13). The complaint alleges these products are designed to appear like Plaintiff's genuine "Kunshengze Products," which have become popular and are associated with high quality (Compl. ¶7). The complaint includes a photograph of a hand wearing an accused product, which shows a wrist-strapped device with individual rings for extending each finger against resistance. (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include a claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Infringing Products" infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’990 Patent (Compl. ¶26). This allegation is supported by the visual evidence included in the complaint, which contains both the figures from the ’990 Patent (Compl. pp. 5-7) and a photograph depicting what is identified as an infringing product in use (Compl. p. 8). A visual comparison of the patent's perspective view in Figure 1 with the product photograph suggests a high degree of similarity in the overall shape, configuration of the finger rings and strap, and general proportions of the device.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The primary legal question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. This analysis will involve comparing the overall visual impression of the designs, not just dissecting individual features.
  • Technical Questions: A potential defense in design patent cases is functionality. The analysis may raise the question of which, if any, aspects of the finger stretcher's design are dictated by its function versus being purely ornamental. For example, a defendant could argue that the presence of five finger rings and a wrist strap are functional necessities for such a device, and any protectable design rights must lie in the purely non-functional, aesthetic choices of shape, proportion, and surface ornamentation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: In design patent litigation, the claim is not defined by text but by the drawings. Claim construction involves determining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the patent figures. The court's construction of this visual claim will define the scope of protection and will be central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may emphasize the overall visual impression and configuration of the device—a wrist strap connected to a palm-side body with five radiating finger rings. They may argue that minor differences in curvature or proportion do not alter this overall impression.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope would point to the specific details shown across all seven figures of the ’990 Patent. They may argue that the exact proportions of the arms, the precise curvature of the central body, and the specific shape of the connection points, as depicted in the front, back, side, top, and bottom views, define the limits of the claimed design (’990 Patent, FIGS. 2-7).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' products infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶26) and that Defendants are "working in active concert" (Compl. ¶22). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful," based on assertions that they "knowingly and willfully" manufactured, imported, and sold the infringing products without authorization (Compl. ¶22-23).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with prior art finger stretchers, is the overall ornamental design of the accused products substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’990 Patent? This determination will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent figures.
• A key legal question will be the application of the functionality doctrine: To what extent are the visual similarities between the patented design and the accused products dictated by the utilitarian function of a five-finger exercise device? The court may need to distinguish between unprotectable functional elements and the purely ornamental aspects of the design that are subject to patent protection.