DCT
1:25-cv-01716
Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdictions unspecified, alleged to be primarily China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
- Case Identification:
- Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
- 1:25-cv-01716, N.D. Ill., 02/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive commercial websites that target and ship products to consumers in Illinois, constituting business activity and tortious acts within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online stores sell metal nibbler drill attachments that infringe Plaintiff's U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of metal nibbler drill attachments, which are power tool accessories used for cutting sheet metal.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this case is related to three prior cases filed in 2024 involving some of the same intellectual property. Plaintiff also discloses that a Petition for a Certificate of Correction was submitted to the USPTO to add an inventor to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-12-06 | D1,006,076 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date) |
| 2023-11-28 | D1,006,076 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,076 - Metal nibbler drill attachment, issued November 28, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, as is typical for design patents. Instead, it provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, a metal nibbler drill attachment (D’076 Patent, p. 1).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the drill attachment. The design's overall aesthetic is characterized by a main body with two vertically stacked, circular housings connected by a curved bridge, a prominent drive shaft extending upwards, and a bent handle rod, as depicted in various perspectives (D’076 Patent, FIG. 1-8). The design claim covers only the ornamental features shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings (’076 Patent, col. 2:21-23).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying this design have become popular and "instantly recognizable" to consumers, associating the design with quality and innovation (Compl. ¶¶7-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment, as shown and described." ('076 Patent, col. 2:8-9).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's figures, including:
- The overall configuration of a main body with two stacked circular housings.
- A flanged upper portion from which a splined driveshaft protrudes.
- A bent, cylindrical handle rod attached to the upper housing.
- The specific surface ornamentation on the larger, upper gear housing, visible in the enlarged view of FIG. 9 (Compl. p. 12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus" (the "Infringing Products") that are sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶5, ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba to sell the Infringing Products to consumers in the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶¶2, 13).
- The complaint alleges that these online stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers and that the Infringing Products bear irregularities suggesting they come from a common, unauthorized source (Compl. ¶¶16, 19). For example, a perspective view of the allegedly infringing design is provided in the complaint. (Compl. p. 5, FIG. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed product" shown in the complaint's exhibits, which are reproductions of the patent's figures (Compl. ¶5). The core of the infringement allegation is that the design of the accused products is substantially the same as the patented design.
D1,006,076 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single design claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment | Defendants are accused of making, using, offering for sale, and selling products that infringe the design claimed in the ’076 Patent. The complaint provides a front elevational view of the design that Defendants allegedly infringe. (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 3). | ¶26 | ’076 Patent, FIG. 3 |
| ...as shown in the perspective view of FIG. 1 | The Infringing Products allegedly embody the specific three-dimensional configuration shown in the patent's figures, creating a visual impression that is substantially the same as the patented design. A perspective view of the design is shown in the complaint. (Compl. p. 6, FIG. 2). | ¶5 | ’076 Patent, FIG. 1, 2 |
| ...and further shown in the enlarged partial view of FIG. 9 | The Infringing Products are alleged to include the specific surface details and features of the patented design, such as the ornamentation on the gear housing. The complaint includes an enlarged view of this feature. (Compl. p. 12, FIG. 9). | ¶8, ¶26 | ’076 Patent, FIG. 9 |
| ...and described in the specification | Defendants are alleged to have infringed the design "disclosed and claimed" in the patent. A top plan view of the design is provided in the complaint. (Compl. p. 11, FIG. 7). | ¶26 | ’076 Patent, FIG. 7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary legal question in a design patent case is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused product is such as to deceive such an observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The case will hinge on a side-by-side comparison of the accused products (which are not pictured in the complaint) and the patented design.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the specific accused products sold by the various "Schedule A" defendants are, in fact, substantially the same as the design depicted in the ’076 Patent's figures. The complaint's visual evidence consists solely of figures from the patent itself, not photographs of any accused product.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. As a design patent, the single claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations, making traditional claim construction analysis inapplicable. The scope of the patent is determined by the overall ornamental visual impression conveyed by the solid lines in the figures.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent, which alleges a basis for indirect infringement (Compl. p. 20, ¶1.b).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint explicitly alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act in concert, use tactics to conceal their identities, and continue to sell infringing products despite Plaintiff's enforcement efforts (Compl. ¶¶18-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A question of substantial similarity: The central substantive issue will be whether an ordinary observer would find the accused products to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’076 Patent. Resolution will require visual comparison between the patent figures and the actual products sold by Defendants.
- An issue of enforcement and identity: A significant procedural challenge will be identifying the proper defendants from the numerous online "Seller Aliases" listed on Schedule A and establishing that they are a "common enterprise" as alleged. The Plaintiff's ability to successfully serve, obtain discovery from, and enforce a judgment against these allegedly foreign-based and anonymous entities will be critical.
- A question of willfulness: Should infringement be found, a key factual question will be whether Defendants acted willfully. The court will likely examine evidence related to Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patent and their purported use of evasive tactics to continue their online sales operations.