DCT

1:24-cv-12867

Honeyera LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Honeyera, LLC (Florida)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of David Gulbransen
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-12867, N.D. Ill., 12/16/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive commercial internet stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of door hanger organizers infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is the ornamental design of an over-the-door storage organizer, a common consumer product for household organization.
  • Key Procedural History: This action is a "Schedule A" case, a litigation strategy used to collectively sue a large number of often anonymous online sellers who are alleged to be part of a coordinated infringement network. The complaint notes this approach is a response to the "ineffective and endless game of whack-a-mole" against mass online piracy.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-04-21 D'613 Patent Application Filing Date
2024-04-23 D'613 Patent Issue Date
2024-12-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,023,613 S - "DOOR HANGER ORGANIZER"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,023,613 S, "DOOR HANGER ORGANIZER," issued April 23, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect aesthetics rather than function. The patent sought to protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture," namely a door hanger organizer (D’613 Patent, p. 1).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a door hanger organizer. The claimed design consists of a vertically-oriented rectangular back panel featuring four tiered, horizontally-elongated pockets, and four circular holes at the top for mounting (D’613 Patent, FIG. 1). The design's overall ornamental impression is illustrated from multiple perspectives, including in an environmental view showing the organizer in use on a door (D’613 Patent, FIG. 7).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying the patented design have become "recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as products associated with and authorized by Honeyera, LLC" (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a door hanger organizer, as shown and described" (D’613 Patent, col. 1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Infringing Products" sold by the Defendants through numerous online storefronts (the "Defendant Internet Stores") (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as "unauthorized products" and "inferior imitations" of Honeyera's products that are sold through "fake online storefronts" (Compl. ¶¶6, 13). It is alleged that Defendants operate these stores on various e-commerce platforms and use tactics to conceal their identities, such as using fictitious names and addresses (Compl. ¶¶22, 34). The complaint alleges that these sales harm Plaintiff through loss of sales, ability to license, and damage to its reputation and goodwill (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific visual evidence of the accused products or a detailed element-by-element comparison. It alleges that the Defendants' products infringe by being a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the design claimed in the Patented Design" (Compl. ¶33.a). 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 to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" meet this standard (Compl. ¶30). The complaint attaches the patent as Exhibit 1, and the design for which protection is sought is depicted in its figures, such as the perspective view in Figure 7 which shows the organizer with its distinct pocket configuration (D’613 Patent, FIG. 7; Compl. Ex. 1).

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific infringing features in a claim chart format.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that each Defendant's specific product is "substantially the same" as the patented design. The complaint's allegations are generalized across all defendants listed in Schedule A.
  • Scope Question: The infringement analysis will depend on the overall visual impression of the products. A question for the court will be whether the accused products replicate the specific ornamental features shown in the solid lines of the patent drawings, or if they only share a general, functional appearance common to other organizers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction of specific terms is less common than in utility patent cases. However, the scope of what is claimed versus what is not is a critical determination.

  • The Term: The scope of the "ornamental design ... as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: The patent explicitly disclaims certain subject matter shown in broken lines. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because the infringement analysis must be limited to the protected elements (solid lines) and cannot be based on the unclaimed environment (broken lines). The patent states, "The equal-length broken lines in the drawings of a door, hooks, and articles retained within the pockets of the door hanger organizer show environment of use and form no part of the claimed design" (D’613 Patent, Description).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim covers the overall ornamental appearance created by the combination of the solid-line features—the rectangular back, the four specific pockets, and the top holes—and that minor variations do not alter this overall visual impression.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is strictly limited to the exact proportions, seam details, and configuration of the pockets as shown in the drawings. Any accused product with visibly different pocket dimensions, shapes, or arrangement may be argued to create a different overall visual impression and thus fall outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert" and are "directly and personally contributing to, inducing and engaging in the sale of Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶20). The prayer for relief also requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶33.b).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that, "upon information and belief," the Defendants have had "full knowledge of Honeyera ownership of the ‘613 Patent" (Compl. ¶21). The alleged infringement is described as "willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶31).

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

  • A primary issue will be an evidentiary one: Can the Plaintiff, in a "Schedule A" action against numerous defendants, meet its burden to produce specific evidence showing that each individual defendant's accused product is "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer?
  • The case will likely turn on a question of infringement scope: Do the accused products create the same overall ornamental impression as the specific design claimed in the patent's solid-line drawings, or are their designs aesthetically different, even if functionally similar?
  • A key procedural question will be the viability of joinder: Can the Plaintiff successfully establish that the numerous, anonymous defendants are part of a "coordinated scheme" arising out of the "same series of transactions or occurrences" (Compl. ¶4), as required to sustain a single lawsuit against all of them?