Cosmoglo LLC v. Partnerships Unicorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cosmoglo, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01326, N.D. Ill., 02/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant operating an interactive e-commerce store that targets and sells products to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s lighting products infringe a U.S. design patent related to a light for cosmetic application.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of specialized lighting for the cosmetics industry, where the ornamental appearance of of equipment can be a significant factor in purchasing decisions.
• Key Procedural History: This action is a 1st Amended Verified Complaint against a single remaining defendant from a previously larger group. The complaint notes a full chain of assignment for the patent-in-suit, culminating in ownership by the Plaintiff, Cosmoglo, LLC of Texas.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D960,427, "LIGHT FOR COSMETIC APPLICATION", issued August 9, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not utility. The implicit problem addressed is the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a floor-standing lamp intended for cosmetic applications (Compl. ¶5; ’427 Patent, Title).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a lamp. The design, as shown in the patent's figures, consists of a flat rectangular base, a tall vertical support pole, and a horizontal arm from which a distinct, downward-curving, arched light head is suspended (’427 Patent, FIGS. 1-11). The complaint alleges this unique design is a key feature valued by customers (Compl. ¶6).
• Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the aesthetic distinctiveness of the patented design is a commercial asset, alleging customers' affinity for the product is based "at least because of the unique patented design" (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the "sole claim" of the ’427 Patent (Compl. ¶17).
• The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a light for cosmetic application, as shown and described" (’427 Patent, Claim). The essential visual elements defining this design are:
  • The overall configuration of a floor-standing lamp with a vertical pole structure.
  • A thin, flat, rectangular base.
  • An L-shaped top structure composed of a horizontal support arm.
  • A prominent, curved, arc-shaped light-emitting head.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are identified as "the Infringing Products," which are "lighting products" sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are sold via at least one "internet e-commerce store" that targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶2, ¶11). The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale, sold, and/or imported into the United States without authorization from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶12). The complaint reproduces Figure 1 from the patent to show the patented design, which consists of a floor-standing lamp with a vertical pole, a rectangular base, and an arched light head (Compl. ¶6, FIG. 1). However, the complaint itself does not contain a corresponding image of the accused product, instead referencing a "screenshot" in Schedule A-2, which was not provided with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element comparison or a claim chart to demonstrate infringement. The infringement theory is articulated through general allegations that Defendant's "Infringing Products" embody a design that infringes the sole claim of the ’427 Patent (Compl. ¶17). The core of the allegation is that the overall ornamental appearance of the accused lighting products is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’427 Patent.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central dispute in a design patent case is a visual comparison. The primary question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing Defendant's product believing it to be Plaintiff's patented design.
  • Evidentiary Basis: A key question arises from the complaint's lack of a side-by-side visual comparison. The case will depend on evidence, such as the screenshot referenced in Schedule A-2 (Compl. ¶11), to establish the actual appearance of the accused products for comparison against the patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is typically defined by the drawings, and formal construction of verbal terms is uncommon. The claim is for the design "as shown and described" (’427 Patent, Claim), and its scope is determined by the visual impression of the figures. Consequently, a dispute centered on construing specific textual claim terms is not anticipated. The analysis will instead focus on comparing the overall visual appearance of the accused product with the patented design as depicted in the patent’s figures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes passing reference to indirect infringement, stating Defendant's products infringe "directly and/or indirectly" (Compl. ¶12, ¶16) and requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶A). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the elements of either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of intent to encourage infringement by third parties.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was and is "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶12, ¶13, ¶16). It does not, however, allege a specific factual basis for this knowledge, such as pre-suit notification of the ’427 Patent.

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

This case presents a classic design patent dispute that will likely turn on the following questions:

1. The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central issue will be a factual one of visual comparison. Will evidence show that the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's accused product is substantially the same as the design depicted in the ’427 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be confused?
2. Scope and Prior Art: The scope of a design patent is influenced by prior art. A key question will be how the patented design compares to other lighting designs that existed before it. The degree of similarity between the accused product and the patented design required for infringement may depend on how novel the patented design is when viewed against the backdrop of the prior art.
3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given the lack of visual evidence of the accused product in the complaint itself, a threshold question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to allow for the necessary visual comparison and prove its infringement allegations.