Pe LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Purkey Enterprises, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: [Redacted] (allegedly People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Flener IP Law, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02710, N.D. Ill., 04/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the Defendant operating interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s imitation headbands infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "ZAZZY BANDZ" product.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer hair accessories market, specifically concerning headbands designed to mimic the appearance of sunglasses worn on the head.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D787,124 - Hair Device for Lifting, Retention, and Styling

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D787,124, "Hair Device for Lifting, Retention, and Styling," issued May 16, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges a market demand for "practical, high-quality, and comfortable hair band products" (Compl. ¶6). It further describes Plaintiff's commercial product, which embodies the design, as creating "the same look as wearing a pair of sunglasses atop the wearer's head" without causing headaches (Compl. ¶5).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a headband-like hair device. The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, features a general U-shape with temple-like arms and a curved front section, capturing a distinct visual appearance (D'124 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The patent's title, "Hair Device for Lifting, Retention, and Styling," provides functional context for the claimed ornamental design (D'124 Patent, Title).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a unique aesthetic for a common consumer product, combining the function of a headband with the style of sunglasses (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for "the ornamental design for a hair device for lifting, retention and styling, as shown and described" (D'124 Patent, Claim).
• The essential elements of the claim are the visual features of the device as depicted in the patent's figures, which include:
  • Figure 1: Perspective view
  • Figure 2: Top plan view
  • Figure 3: Bottom plan view
  • Figure 4: Front elevation view
  • Figure 5: Rear elevation view
  • Figure 6: Left side elevation view (right side is a mirror image)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products" sold through at least one e-commerce store on Amazon (Compl. ¶3). The complaint characterizes them as "imitation versions," "knockoff products," and "counterfeits" of Plaintiff's ZAZZY BANDZ products (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are headbands that infringe the ornamental design claimed in the '124 Patent (Compl. ¶29). The complaint includes a table displaying Figures 1 through 6 from the '124 Patent, showing the claimed design from perspective, top, bottom, front, rear, and side views (Compl. p. 5, ¶9).
• The complaint alleges that the Defendant's products are sold to "unknowing consumers" and are designed to appear to be "genuine ZAZZY BANDZ branded products" (Compl. ¶3). It further alleges that the Defendant uses Plaintiff's own copyrighted images to advertise the infringing products, creating consumer confusion (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide images of the accused products for a side-by-side comparison. The infringement theory is presented narratively. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports products that infringe the ornamental design of the '124 Patent (Compl. ¶29).

The core of the allegation rests on the "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement. The complaint asserts that "in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the ornamental design of Plaintiff's design patent and the overall design features of Defendant's products are substantially the same, if not identical, with resemblance such as to deceive an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges this infringement is committed both directly and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶29).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary issue will be establishing the specific design of the accused products. As the complaint does not include images of the accused products, discovery will be required to determine if their appearance is, in fact, "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '124 Patent.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on how an ordinary observer perceives the overall visual impression of the claimed design. The question for the court will be whether the accused products, once identified, create the same overall visual impression as the design depicted in the figures of the '124 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, rather than a set of text-based limitations. Claim construction consists of describing the claimed ornamental design in words.

• The Term: The overall ornamental design for a "hair device" as shown in Figures 1-6.
• Context and Importance: The scope of the patent is defined by the visual impression created by the drawings. The central question is what an ordinary observer would perceive as the protectable design. Practitioners may focus on whether the design is viewed as a holistic shape or as a collection of specific curves and features.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The title, "Hair Device for Lifting, Retention, and Styling," suggests the design applies to a category of functional items, potentially giving the visual features more weight over any specific, narrow use (D'124 Patent, Title). The claim itself broadly covers the design "as shown and described" without limitation to a particular material or size.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific, detailed lines and proportions shown in the six orthogonal and perspective views (Figs. 1-6) define the precise scope of the claimed design. Any significant deviation in the shape, curvature, or proportions of an accused product could potentially place it outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for indirect patent infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the ZAZZY BANDZ Design" (Prayer ¶A.ii).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the Defendant having "full knowledge" of Plaintiff's patent rights "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint further alleges that Defendant "knowingly and willfully" offered for sale infringing products (Compl. ¶21, ¶30).

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

1. A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the products sold by the Defendant are visually, from the perspective of an ordinary observer, "substantially the same" as the specific ornamental design shown in the figures of the '124 Patent. The outcome of the case hinges on the appearance of the accused products, which are not depicted in the complaint.
2. The case will also turn on the application of the infringement standard: Assuming the accused products are not identical, the key legal question will be how the court applies the "ordinary observer" test. The analysis will focus on whether the overall visual impression of the accused product is the same as the patented design, or if any differences are significant enough to avoid a finding of infringement.