Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona)
  • Defendant: [REDACTED] AND THE INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES OPERATING [REDACTED] (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-11425, N.D. Ill., 11/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that hairbrushes sold by a network of unidentified e-commerce operators infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer hair care products sector, where a product's unique ornamental design can serve as a significant source of brand identity and market differentiation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-07-28	U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Application Filing Date (Priority Date)
2024-05-28	U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Issue Date
2024-11-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 - Hair Brush

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527, "Hair Brush", issued May 28, 2024 (’527 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem, but instead provides a new and original design for a hairbrush, distinguishing it visually from prior art designs.
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a specific ornamental design for a hairbrush, the scope of which is defined by the seven drawings included in the patent (’527 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Key visual features include the overall configuration of the brush head and handle, the specific pattern and arrangement of the bristle rows, an undulating or scalloped edge along the sides of the brush head, and a tapered, pointed handle (’527 Patent, DESCRIPTION; Figs. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's "Bounce Curl Products are known for their distinctive patented designs" and that these designs are "widely recognized by consumers," associating the unique appearance with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described" (’527 Patent, CLAIM).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent figures. The core ornamental elements constituting the design include:
  • The overall profile and proportions of the brush.
  • The distinct, slightly curved bristle pad.
  • The arrangement of bristle rows.
  • The scalloped design feature on the lateral sides of the brush head.
  • The shape and taper of the handle, culminating in a pointed tip.
• The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally and does not limit its allegations to specific features (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to as the "Infringing Products," allegedly sold by Defendants through numerous e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and TikTok (Compl. ¶3, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "unauthorized and unlicensed" and are sold via e-commerce stores designed to mislead consumers into believing they are "authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers" (Compl. ¶3, ¶16). These stores are alleged to use content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from authorized retailers (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides a perspective view of the patented design, which it alleges is infringed by the Defendants' products (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

Because this is a design patent case, infringement is determined by comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product to the patent's drawings from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The table below breaks down the core ornamental features of the single claim for analytical clarity, based on the complaint's allegations.

Claim Element (from the design "as shown and described")	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a hair brush, including its particular configuration and surface ornamentation.	The complaint alleges that Defendants sell hairbrushes that are "the same" as Plaintiff's patented design, creating a visual appearance that is substantially indistinguishable from the claimed design.	¶3, ¶26	Figs. 1-7
The specific visual appearance of the brush head, including the undulating side edges.	The accused products are alleged to incorporate the distinctive ornamental features of the patented design, including the specific shape of the brush head and its scalloped side edges.	p. 4, FIG. 1; p. 5, FIG. 5	Fig. 1; Fig. 5
The particular arrangement of bristle rows on the brush head.	The accused products allegedly replicate the claimed visual pattern and placement of bristle rows.	p. 4, FIG. 4	Fig. 4
The specific shape of the handle, including its tapered, pointed end.	The accused products are alleged to have a handle with the same overall shape and pointed-tip feature as shown in the patented design.	p. 4, FIG. 1	Fig. 1

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The litigation may focus on whether any differences between the accused brushes and the patent drawings are significant enough to alter the overall visual impression, or if they are merely minor variations.
• Technical Questions: A potential issue is the distinction between ornamental and functional features. A defendant might argue that any similarities in appearance are dictated by the brush's function and are therefore not protected by the '527 Patent. The court may need to determine which aspects of the brush's design are ornamental and which, if any, are purely functional.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations, so traditional claim construction of specific terms is generally not the central issue. The analysis focuses on interpreting the scope of the design as a whole from the patent's figures.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for the hair brush."
• Context and Importance: The scope of what is considered "ornamental" will be critical. The infringement analysis depends on comparing the ornamental aspects of the accused product to the design claimed in the '527 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this issue because if key similarities are deemed functional rather than ornamental, they fall outside the scope of the design patent's protection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described," which suggests the protected design is the entire visual appearance shown in all seven figures, taken as a whole, rather than any single feature in isolation (’527 Patent, CLAIM, DESCRIPTION).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The protection afforded by a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects. A defendant could argue that features such as the bristle arrangement or the pointed handle serve functional purposes (e.g., detangling or sectioning hair) and should therefore be given little weight in the infringement analysis, narrowing the effective scope of the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants "indirectly" infringe the patent, and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis for this appears tied to the allegation that the defendants operate as a coordinated network (Compl. ¶19).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the infringement was "knowingly and willfully" committed (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants use tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating under multiple fictitious aliases and using offshore accounts, which may suggest an intent to evade detection and enforcement of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶19, ¶21).

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, is the overall ornamental design of the accused hairbrushes substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
• A second key question will involve the scope of protection: To what extent are the features of the patented design purely ornamental, and therefore protectable, versus primarily functional and thus outside the scope of a design patent? The case may turn on whether the shared elements are legally cognizable similarities.
• A significant practical question will be one of enforcement and liability: Can the Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous e-commerce operators and provide sufficient evidence to treat them as a single, interrelated group of defendants for purposes of liability and injunctive relief?