PG Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Flener IP Law, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01145, N.D. Ill., 09/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants operate interactive, commercial internet stores that directly target and sell products to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers, operating as an interrelated group, are making, using, selling, and importing hair blending tools that infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "BLEND FREND" product.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of hair grooming accessories, where the unique ornamental design of a tool can serve as a significant indicator of its source and quality for both professional and at-home consumers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-10-29	U.S. Patent No. D982,233 Priority Date (Int. Filing Date)
2023-03-28	U.S. Patent No. D982,233 Issues
2023	Plaintiff launches BLEND FREND branded products
2025-09-08	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D982,233 S - "Guide for hair clippers"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D982,233 S (“the ’233 Patent”), "Guide for hair clippers," issued March 28, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff created a "unique, distinctive, and non-functional design" to use with its hair blending products, distinguishing them in the marketplace (Compl. ¶6). In design patents, the "problem" is aesthetic—creating a novel ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a guide for hair clippers, not its utilitarian features (Compl. ¶7). The claimed design, depicted in seven figures, consists of a handle with a cross-hatch or grid-like surface texture, which transitions into a head portion comprising a series of parallel tines (D’982,233 Patent, Figs. 1.1-1.7). The figures show the head is set at a distinct angle relative to the handle, creating an overall unique visual impression (D’982,233 Patent, Fig. 1.3).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that through extensive promotion and use, the patented design has become a "well-known indicator of the origin and quality" of Plaintiff’s products (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a guide for hair clippers, as shown and described." (D’982,233 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of the claim is defined by the visual elements depicted in the patent’s drawings, the key features of which include:
  • The overall T-shaped profile of the guide.
  • A handle portion with a textured surface pattern.
  • A head portion featuring multiple parallel tines.
  • A distinct, angled transition between the handle and the head portion.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "knockoff products," described as "inferior imitations" of Plaintiff's "BLEND FREND Products," which are sold by Defendants through various online storefronts (Compl. ¶13, 15, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants operate numerous "Defendant Internet Stores" designed to appear as if they are selling genuine BLEND FREND products (Compl. ¶15). These stores allegedly sell hair blending tools featuring Plaintiff's patented design to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides several figures from the patent, including a perspective view showing the angled head and textured handle of the claimed design (Compl. p. 4, Figure 3). It further alleges that screenshot evidence of the infringing products offered on Defendants' online storefronts is contained in an exhibit to the complaint (Compl. ¶16, n.4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central test for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it is the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products meet this standard (Compl. ¶32).

D982,233 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the sole claim, as depicted in the figures)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
The overall ornamental appearance of the guide for hair clippers, as shown and described.	The "overall design features" of the accused products are "substantially the same, if not identical" to Plaintiff's patented design.	¶32	Figs. 1.1-1.7
The specific combination of a textured handle, angled head, and configuration of tines.	The accused products allegedly create the "same overall visual impression" as the patented design.	¶17	Figs. 1.3, 1.6
The holistic design as perceived by an ordinary observer.	The resemblance between the accused products and the patented design is "such as to deceive an ordinary observer."	¶32	Figs. 1.1-1.7

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether certain aspects of the claimed design are primarily functional rather than ornamental. The complaint asserts the design is "non-functional" (Compl. ¶6). A defense may raise the question of whether features common to all hair clipper guides should be filtered out of the infringement analysis, thereby narrowing the scope of the patent's protection to only its purely decorative elements.
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations rely on visual comparison. A key question for the court will be whether the visual evidence of the accused products, once produced, is sufficient to establish that the designs are "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶17, 32). The outcome will depend heavily on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the figures in the ’233 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the design as depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, but disputes can arise over the scope of the claimed design.

• The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire dispute centers on the visual scope of the design claimed in the ’233 Patent. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing the purely "ornamental" aspects of the design from any functional features, as only the ornamental features are protected. The definition of this boundary will be critical to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of all features shown in solid lines across all seven figures of the ’233 Patent. This holistic view is supported by the consistent depiction of the handle texture, head angle, and tine shape, suggesting they form a single, unitary ornamental design (D’982,233 Patent, Figs. 1.1-1.7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the patent's title, "Guide for hair clippers," indicates a functional purpose (D’982,233 Patent, (54)). This could support an interpretation where basic functional elements—such as the presence of a handle and comb-like tines—are given little to no weight in the infringement analysis, narrowing the protectable scope to more specific, arbitrary features like the particular surface pattern on the handle.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendants offered for sale products that "directly and/or indirectly infringe" (Compl. ¶22). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. ¶A.ii). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert to knowingly and willfully" sell infringing products (Compl. ¶22, 23). The complaint suggests this knowledge can be inferred from Defendants' alleged use of tactics to conceal their identities and operate a "massive infringing operation" (Compl. ¶4, 21).

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

This case appears to present a focused design patent dispute against a group of online sellers. The litigation will likely center on the following key questions:

• A core issue will be one of visual identity: Based on a side-by-side comparison, are the accused products "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’233 Patent such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The resolution of this factual question will depend entirely on the visual evidence presented at trial.
• A secondary, but potentially critical, question will be the scope of patentability: To what extent are the visual features of the patented design dictated by function versus ornament? A determination that key similarities are functional could significantly narrow the effective scope of the patent and weaken the infringement case.