Solawave Inc v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Solawave Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction(s) Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00157, N.D. Ill., 01/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ business activities targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unidentified e-commerce operators are selling facial wands that infringe its design patent.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of personal electronic skincare devices, a market characterized by significant consumer interest in product aesthetics and brand identity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a group of unidentified "Schedule A" defendants, a common procedural posture for targeting online sellers who allegedly operate from foreign jurisdictions and use aliases to conceal their identities. Plaintiff alleges these defendants operate as an interrelated network.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-02-02	D1,024,350 Patent Application Filed
2024-04-23	D1,024,350 Patent Issued
2025-01-07	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,024,350 - "Massage Wand"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,024,350, “Massage Wand,” issued April 23, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; they protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a new, original, and non-obvious aesthetic design for a facial massage wand.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a massage wand as depicted in its figures (’350 Patent, Claim). The design features an elongated, slender body with a distinct head that is angled relative to the body (’350 Patent, FIG. 5). The head has a continuous, ovular or "racetrack" shape, and the body includes a single, similarly ovular control button placed centrally below the head (’350 Patent, FIG. 3). The overall impression is one of a clean, minimalist, and modern aesthetic.
• Technical Importance: The design provides a distinctive visual identity for a personal care product in a competitive consumer market, where appearance can be a significant driver of purchasing decisions (Compl. ¶5, ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a massage wand, as shown and described" (’350 Patent, Claim).
• The essential elements of the design are the visual characteristics embodied in the patent's nine figures, which collectively define the patented ornamental appearance.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically facial wands sold by the unidentified Defendants through various e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶3, ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶3).
• The complaint alleges Defendants operate e-commerce stores designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers," using Plaintiff's design to trade on its reputation and goodwill (Compl. ¶3, ¶14). These operations are allegedly part of a larger, interrelated network of infringers who conceal their identities and coordinate tactics to evade enforcement (Compl. ¶17, ¶18). A visual from the complaint shows the patented design, which Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' products embody (Compl. ¶7, p. 4). This table includes Figure 1 from the patent, depicting a front perspective view of the wand design (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The analysis focuses on the overall visual impression of the design, not a direct comparison of discrete technical elements.

• D1,024,350 Infringement Allegations

Key Visual Feature of the Patented Design	Alleged Infringing Appearance	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a massage wand, as depicted in the patent's figures.	Defendants are alleged to be making, using, and selling "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Solawave Design."	¶24	FIGS. 1-9
A slender, elongated body portion combined with an angled head portion.	The complaint alleges Defendants sell products that copy the "patented design shown in the...table," which includes views illustrating the handle and head configuration.	¶7	FIGS. 1, 5
A head portion with a continuous, ovular or "racetrack" shaped surface.	The complaint's general allegation of copying the "Solawave Design" necessarily includes the distinctive head shape shown prominently in the patent figures.	¶7, ¶24	FIGS. 3, 7
A single, centrally-located, ovular control button on the body.	The infringement allegation encompasses all features of the patented design, including the specific placement and shape of the control button as depicted.	¶24	FIG. 3

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be whether the accused products sold by Defendants are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the ’350 Patent's claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may arise concerning the distinction between ornamental and functional features. A court would focus the infringement analysis on the ornamental aspects of the design, filtering out any aspects dictated solely by the article's function. The complaint does not, however, raise this as an issue.
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the defendants are unidentified, a primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be obtaining samples of the accused products from each "Seller Alias" to perform a direct visual comparison against the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For design patents, the claim is understood to be the design as shown in the drawings. Formal claim construction of written terms is rare. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific terms, as the dispute centers on the visual appearance of the claimed design as a whole.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent (Compl. p. 14, ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on direct infringement through Defendants' own making, using, selling, and importing activities (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶21). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" imported, offered for sale, and sold products that infringe the patent without authorization from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶20). The allegation that Defendants are part of a network that actively works to evade detection could be used to support a finding of willfulness (Compl. ¶18).

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

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will the overall ornamental appearance of the accused facial wands, once identified and presented to the court, be considered "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’350 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary purchaser of such goods?

2. A significant challenge will be procedural and evidentiary: Can the Plaintiff successfully serve, establish jurisdiction over, and enforce a judgment against the "Schedule A" defendants, who are alleged to be anonymous, foreign-based e-commerce operators intentionally concealing their identities and assets?