DCT

1:25-cv-04071

Guangdongsheng Shunhechuanmei Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04071, N.D. Ill., 04/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through the operation of interactive e-commerce stores and the shipment of accused products to residents of the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sale of a "metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus" infringes its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a tool.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns power tool accessories, specifically attachments that enable a standard power drill to function as a metal-cutting nibbler for use in fields like metal fabrication and HVAC.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the case is related to several prior intellectual property cases filed by the Plaintiff. It also states that an approved Certificate of Correction was issued by the USPTO to add a second inventor to the patent-in-suit, which could be relevant to ownership and standing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-12-06 D1,006,076 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2023-11-28 D1,006,076 Patent Issue Date
2025-04-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,006,076 - "Metal nibbler drill attachment"

  • Issued: November 28, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but instead protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to secure rights to a unique aesthetic for a product (D'076 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment. The claimed ornamental design features a main body housing with two prominent, circular cutting wheel assemblies arranged in an overlapping, offset configuration, a vertical mounting flange with a cylindrical shaft, and a distinctively curved handle (D'076 Patent, FIGs. 1, 3). The design's overall impression is created by the interplay of these shapes and their proportional relationships.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "instantly recognizable" by consumers and has become associated with the "quality and innovation" of the Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment, as shown and described" (D'076 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
    • The overall configuration of the main housing and dual cutting wheels.
    • The specific shape and contour of the curved handle.
    • The surface ornamentation on the cutting wheels, as detailed in an enlarged view (D'076 Patent, FIG. 9).
  • The patent explicitly disclaims portions of the article shown in broken lines, such as the support rod and bracket, meaning they do not form part of the protected design (D'076 Patent, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus" sold by Defendants through various online storefronts on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and others (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 13). The complaint refers to these collectively as the "Infringing Products."

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" targeting consumers throughout the United States, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶13). The complaint asserts that the products sold by the various named defendants are, on information and belief, "the same product" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes several views of the patented design (Compl. pp. 5-13, FIGs. 1-10). For example, it provides a perspective view of the patented design from the patent itself (Compl. p. 5, FIG. 1). The complaint alleges that the products sold by Defendants infringe this design (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the accused products infringe the ornamental design claimed in the D'076 patent (Compl. ¶26). The legal 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 to be the patented design.

The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that the accused products are visually substantially the same as the ornamental design shown in the solid lines of the D'076 patent's figures (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 26). A close-up view of a toothed wheel element is provided in the complaint, suggesting that the specific surface ornamentation of this feature is part of the claimed design (Compl. p. 12, FIG. 9). The central question for the court will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the claimed design.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: The primary question will be factual: is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products substantially the same as that claimed in the D'076 patent? This analysis will focus on the visual impression created by the design as a whole, not minor differences.
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue is the proper application of the "ordinary observer" test. The analysis must filter out the functional aspects of the tool and the portions shown in broken lines in the patent drawings (e.g., the support rod and bracket) from the comparison, as they are not part of the protected design (D'076 Patent, Description). The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's similarity resides in the claimed ornamental features or the unclaimed functional/environmental elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, "claim construction" focuses on defining the visual scope of the claim as depicted in the drawings, rather than interpreting textual terms.

  • The "Term": The ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment.
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the scope of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on which visual elements are ornamental and protected versus those that are purely functional or disclaimed. The court's interpretation of the drawings will define the boundaries for the "ordinary observer" comparison.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the "overall ornamental design," suggesting that the visual impression of the article as a whole is protected, not merely a discrete checklist of features. The protection extends to any design that is "substantially the same" in overall appearance.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description explicitly states that "The broken lines illustrate portions of the metal nibbler drill attachment that form no part of the claimed design" (D'076 Patent, Description). This language limits the scope strictly to the features shown in solid lines. Any similarities between an accused product and the disclaimed elements are legally irrelevant to the infringement analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement and seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement, or the elements of a contributory infringement claim.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶23). The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶22). This appears to be based on a theory of deliberate copying rather than specific knowledge of the D'076 patent prior to the lawsuit.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused metal nibbler attachments substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the D'076 patent, such that a purchaser would be deceived?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of joinder and proof: Can the Plaintiff prove its allegation that the numerous, anonymous "Schedule A" defendants constitute an interrelated network acting in concert and selling the same infringing product from a common source, or will they be treated as separate, unrelated entities?
  3. The case may also present a question of scope delineation: How will the court and the fact-finder properly filter out the disclaimed portions (shown in broken lines) and any purely functional elements from the infringement analysis to ensure the comparison is limited only to the protected ornamental features of the D'076 patent?