DCT
1:25-cv-04067
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 Unknown, Allegedly China-based)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04067, N.D. Ill., 04/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois, including operating interactive commercial websites and shipping products to residents of the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of metal nibbler drill attachments infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a tool.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns power tool accessories, specifically drill attachments that function as metal nibblers for cutting sheet metal, a common tool in metalworking and fabrication.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies four prior related cases involving some of the same intellectual property, suggesting an ongoing enforcement campaign against online sellers. The complaint also notes that a Certificate of Correction was issued for the patent-in-suit to add an inventor.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-12-06 | U.S. Patent No. D1,006,076 Application Filing Date |
| 2023-01-01 | Plaintiff began marketing products in the U.S. (stated as "Since at least 2023") |
| 2023-11-28 | U.S. Patent No. D1,006,076 Issued |
| 2025-04-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,076 - "METAL NIBBLER DRILL ATTACHMENT"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,076, “METAL NIBBLER DRILL ATTACHMENT,” issued November 28, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the patent-in-suit does not address a functional problem but instead protects a specific, non-functional ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶26).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the unique visual appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment as depicted in its drawings (’076 Patent, Figs. 1-10). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, is characterized by the overall configuration of the main body, the distinct shape of an angled handle, a dual-wheel structure at the base, and specific texturing on one of the wheels (’076 Patent, Fig. 9). Portions of the tool shown in broken lines are explicitly disclaimed and do not form part of the protected design (’076 Patent, Description).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim: “The ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment, as shown and described.” (’076 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent’s ten figures. Key ornamental elements include:
- The overall configuration and proportions of the tool's main housing.
- The specific curves and angle of the attached handle.
- The stacked, two-wheel arrangement at the device's base.
- The detailed, gear-like surface ornamentation on the upper of the two wheels.
- The complaint asserts infringement of this single design claim (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are “metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus” (the “Infringing Products”) sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶5, ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, targeting consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). These stores are alleged to offer for sale and sell products that are visually identical or substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s patented design (Compl. ¶5, ¶26). The complaint includes a table showing a perspective view of the patented design from FIG. 1 (Compl. p. 5). The complaint further alleges that the products sold by the various anonymous defendants are the "same product" and likely originate from a common source (Compl. ¶13, ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
For a design patent, infringement occurs if an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The analysis focuses on the overall similarity of the designs, not a disaggregation of elements.
D1,006,076 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Single Claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment, as shown and described. | Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products that allegedly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’076 patent. | ¶5, ¶26 | col. 2:50-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue will be the proper interpretation of the claimed design's scope. The analysis must focus only on the features depicted in solid lines in the patent drawings, as the patent explicitly disclaims the matter shown in broken lines as environmental and not part of the claimed design (’076 Patent, Description). The court will have to determine whether the accused products replicate the overall visual impression created by this specific combination of solid-line features.
- Technical Questions: The primary question for the fact-finder will be one of visual comparison: does the overall appearance of the accused products create substantially the same visual impression as the claimed design in the eye of an ordinary observer? The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide side-by-side photographic evidence comparing an accused product to the patent drawings.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As a design patent, the ’076 patent's claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations. Therefore, traditional claim construction of specific terms is not the central issue. The analysis will instead focus on the overall visual impression of the claimed design as a whole, particularly the distinction between claimed and unclaimed features.
- The Term: The scope of the claimed "ornamental design" as defined by the solid-line versus broken-line portions of the patent figures.
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this distinction because it is dispositive for the scope of a design patent claim. The infringement analysis must filter out any resemblance based on the functional elements or other features shown in broken lines, as those are not part of the intellectual property right being asserted. The comparison must be between the accused product's design and only the solid-line features in the patent drawings.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the design for a "metal nibbler drill attachment" generally, which may support an argument that the design is not limited to an exact replica shown in a single embodiment, so long as the overall ornamental impression is the same.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes an explicit disclaimer: "The broken lines illustrate portions of the metal nibbler drill attachment that form no part of the claimed design" (’076 Patent, Description). This statement provides a clear and definitive limit on the scope of the claim, excluding all features shown in broken lines from the infringement analysis.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" (Compl. ¶22). While the primary infringement count focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. p. 19), the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing acts, which lays the groundwork for potential indirect infringement theories (Prayer ¶1.b).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful, asserting they acted "knowingly and willfully" to manufacture, import, and sell the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). The pleading of multiple prior, related cases may be used to argue that infringement of this design is a known issue in the relevant e-commerce marketplace (Compl. ¶4).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into believing the accused online product listings depict the specific ornamental design claimed in the ’076 patent, focusing only on the features shown in solid lines?
- A key evidentiary and procedural question will be whether Plaintiff can successfully prove that the numerous, anonymous "Seller Aliases" identified on Schedule A are legally connected or engaged in concerted action, and that the products they actually sell and ship to U.S. consumers embody the patented design.