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-11659, N.D. Ill., 11/13/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' operation of interactive e-commerce stores that target and ship products to consumers in Illinois, constituting tortious acts within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are selling "finger stretching apparatus" that infringes Plaintiff's design patent and copyrighted images.
• Technical Context: The case involves finger exercisers or stretchers, a consumer product category within the health, wellness, and physical therapy market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this action is related to twelve prior cases involving some of the same intellectual property. It also discloses that a Certificate of Correction was approved by the USPTO to add a second inventor to the patent-in-suit, which may be relevant to questions of patent ownership and validity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D980,990 - "FINGER STRETCHER", issued March 14, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint does not articulate a functional problem but instead focuses on establishing a unique visual identity in the marketplace, alleging that Plaintiff's products are known for their "distinctive patented and copyrighted designs" (Compl. ¶8). The implicit problem is creating a non-functional, ornamental appearance for a finger stretcher that is recognizable to consumers (Compl. ¶7).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design of a finger stretcher. The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a wrist strap assembly connected to a central body from which five arms radiate outwards, each terminating in a cylindrical finger ring (’990 Patent, FIG. 1, 6). The overall visual impression is one of a splayed, web-like structure for finger engagement combined with a wrist anchor.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "unique and innovative design" is a driver of the product's popularity and consumer recognition (Compl. ¶7). The design's importance, therefore, is commercial and aesthetic rather than functional.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a finger stretcher, as shown and described" ('990 Patent, Claim).
• The "elements" of the design claim are the visual features depicted in the patent's seven figures, which collectively define the protected ornamental appearance. Key features include:
  • The overall configuration of a wrist strap connected to five splayed finger rings.
  • The specific shape and contour of the central body connecting the strap to the finger ring arms.
  • The relative proportions and angles of the five radiating arms.
  • The cylindrical shape of the finger rings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed" finger stretching devices, referred to as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶5). These products are allegedly sold by the unidentified Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as being sold on major online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and others (Compl. ¶13). The core allegation is not about the products' function but their appearance; they are alleged to embody an ornamental design that is the same as or confusingly similar to the one claimed in the '990 Patent (Compl. ¶5, ¶26). The complaint includes a visual of the patented design, which serves as a proxy for the appearance of the accused products. For example, a drawing from the patent shows a perspective view of the finger stretcher device (Compl. p. 5, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a traditional claim chart. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the accused products infringe the single design claim of the '990 Patent. The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it was the patented design.

’990 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a photograph of what it identifies as its copyrighted work, depicting the product in use, to illustrate the design at issue (Compl. p. 8).

Identified Points of Contention

• The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central question will be whether the specific products sold by the yet-to-be-identified Defendants are similar enough in their overall ornamental appearance to the '990 Patent's drawings to confuse an ordinary purchaser.
• Evidentiary Linkage: A significant procedural challenge for the Plaintiff will be to identify the anonymous Defendants and definitively link specific accused products to each of them. The complaint alleges that Defendants' e-commerce stores share "unique identifiers" and "common design elements," which suggests an attempt to prove a relationship between the otherwise anonymous storefronts (Compl. ¶19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the drawings, and formal claim construction of specific terms is uncommon.

• The Term: "finger stretcher"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its definition is critical for framing the "ordinary observer" test, as the observer is considered in the context of purchasing this type of article. However, as both the patent and the accused products appear to be unambiguously "finger stretchers," the scope of this term itself is not expected to be a major point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer evidence for a broader interpretation. The patent title and figures consistently point to one type of article.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the '990 Patent exclusively show a device for exercising the fingers of a human hand ('990 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The patent's context provides no basis for applying the design to any other type of article.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26) and references "aiding, abetting, contributing to" infringement in the prayer for relief (Compl. p. 16). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement by the sellers.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" infringing (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). The factual support for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants operate as a coordinated enterprise using "tactics... to conceal their identities" and evade enforcement, such as operating under multiple fictitious aliases and moving funds to off-shore accounts (Compl. ¶12, ¶19-21).

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

1. The Infringement Test: The case will turn on the visual question at the heart of design patent law: are the accused products, when viewed by an ordinary observer, substantially the same as the ornamental design depicted in the '990 Patent's figures?
2. Identifying the Infringers: A primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be procedural and evidentiary. Can it successfully use the discovery process to unmask the anonymous operators behind the "Seller Aliases" listed in Schedule A and tie specific infringing sales to each of them? The success of the case against this type of defendant structure depends heavily on this step.
3. Willfulness and Coordinated Action: A key damages question will be whether Plaintiff can prove its allegations of willfulness. This will likely require evidence that the Defendants acted as a knowing, coordinated enterprise to copy Plaintiff's design and evade detection, rather than as a collection of independent, unknowing infringers.