DCT

1:25-cv-04178

Bakhtiyari v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations On Schedule A

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04178, N.D. Ill., 04/16/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate commercial internet stores that directly target and sell products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online sellers are selling "knock-off" face and lip exercise devices that infringe the ornamental designs protected by two of her U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the ornamental design of exercise devices used in the cosmetic and dental fields.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff has provided notice of her patent rights via digital marking on her online stores. U.S. Patent No. D929,510 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. D916,211, establishing a relationship and shared design elements between the two patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-10-09 Priority Date for D'916,211 and D'929,510 Patents
2021-04-13 U.S. Patent No. D'916,211 Issued
2021-08-31 U.S. Patent No. D'929,510 Issued
2025-04-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D916,211 - "FACE AND LIP EXERCISE DEVICE"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D916211 S, "FACE AND LIP EXERCISE DEVICE", issued April 13, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint does not articulate a specific technical problem in the manner of a utility patent. Instead, it asserts that the Plaintiff, a board-certified dentist, "revolutionized the cosmetic and dental industries" (Compl. ¶5) and "continuously refined the design to achieve both aesthetic appeal and functionality" (Compl. ¶6). The implicit problem is the creation of a novel and ornamental design for a face and lip exercise device.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design of the exercise device as depicted in its figures. The design features a symmetrical, V-shaped body with a central curved portion, terminating in two flared, paddle-like end pieces intended for engagement with the user's mouth ('211 Patent, FIGS. 1-5). The claim covers the visual appearance of the entire article as shown in solid lines.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the product embodying the patented design was "the first to market, with a well-earned reputation for quality and innovation" (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
  • Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a face and lip exercise device, as shown and described."
  • The essential elements are the overall visual impression created by the combination of the device's V-shape, the central U-shaped curve, the straight arms, and the specific shape of the flared end pieces, all of which are claimed as part of the design ('211 Patent, FIGS. 1-5).

U.S. Design Patent No. D929,510 - "FACE AND LIP EXERCISE DEVICE"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D929510 S, "FACE AND LIP EXERCISE DEVICE", issued August 31, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '211 patent, the focus is on the ornamental appearance of the device (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The '510 Patent protects a visually similar design to the '211 Patent but with a critically different scope. The drawings use broken lines to depict the paddle-like end pieces, which expressly disclaims them from the protected design ('510 Patent, Description; FIGS. 1-5). The patented design therefore consists only of the central U-shaped portion and the two arms extending therefrom. This patent is a continuation of the application for the '211 Patent, suggesting a strategic effort to secure protection for different aspects of the same base design ('510 Patent, "Related U.S. Application Data").
  • Technical Importance: The allegations regarding market position and innovation are identical to those for the '211 Patent (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Claim 1: "The ornamental design for a face and lip exercise device, as shown and described."
  • The essential elements are limited to the features shown in solid lines: the V-shape, the central U-shaped curve, and the straight arms ('510 Patent, FIG. 1). The shape and appearance of the end pieces form no part of this claimed design ('510 Patent, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

"Knockoff products" that are alleged to be the "same" as Plaintiff's product, sold by Defendants via numerous online storefronts on platforms such as Amazon, TEMU, Walmart, and eBay (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 17, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants sell products that are direct copies of the Plaintiff's "FACE AND LIP EXERCISE DEVICE" (Compl. ¶3). These products are offered for sale and sold to consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶10). The complaint includes an image comparing the patented designs of the '510 and '211 patents side-by-side, which serves as the visual proxy for the patented product itself (Compl. p. 4). The complaint states that visual evidence of the accused infringing products is contained in a sealed Exhibit C (Compl. ¶11, n.1). The complaint alleges that Defendants operate as an "interrelated group of infringers" who use tactics like fictitious names and multiple store accounts to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13, 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that for an ordinary observer, the accused products are substantially the same as the patented designs, which is the legal test for design patent infringement. The infringement allegations are not presented in a formal claim chart but are asserted through narrative paragraphs and visual aids.

The complaint presents an image showing the perspective views from both the '211 and '510 patents, establishing the claimed ornamental designs at issue (Compl. p. 4). Infringement is alleged based on a comparison of the accused products, shown in a sealed exhibit, to these patented designs (Compl. ¶11, ¶23, ¶28).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary infringement question will differ for each patent. For the '211 Patent, the inquiry is whether the overall appearance of the accused product is substantially the same as the claimed design, including the end pieces. For the '510 Patent, the inquiry is narrower: whether the central body and arms of the accused product are substantially the same as the claimed design, irrespective of the appearance of the end pieces. This raises the question of whether a product with differently shaped end pieces could infringe the '510 Patent but not the '211 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the patent figures. The complaint alleges the products are the "same," but the infringement analysis will depend on whether the resemblance is close enough to deceive an ordinary observer, inducing a purchase of one believing it to be the other.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, there are no "terms" to construe in the traditional sense; the claim is understood through the drawings. However, the scope of the claim as defined by the drawings is a critical legal issue.

  • The Term: The scope of the claimed design as defined by solid versus broken lines in the '510 Patent.
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this issue because the use of broken lines in the '510 Patent drawings is a deliberate disclaimer of subject matter. This act fundamentally changes the infringement analysis for the '510 Patent compared to the '211 Patent, which claims the entire device. The court's interpretation of this disclaimer will determine what features of the accused product are relevant to the '510 infringement claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (applicable to the '211 Patent): The '211 Patent depicts all features of the device in solid lines, indicating that the ornamental design of the entire article is claimed ('211 Patent, FIGS. 1-5).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (applicable to the '510 Patent): The '510 Patent specification contains an explicit statement clarifying the scope: "The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of my face and lip exercise device that form no part of the claimed design" ('510 Patent, Description). This provides unambiguous intrinsic evidence that the claim is limited to the central body and arms of the device.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶18) and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. p. 9, ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the elements of induced or contributory infringement, such as alleging that Defendants provided instructions to third parties on how to infringe.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶11, ¶19). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants sell "knock-off" products, operate in a coordinated manner to conceal their identities, and had constructive notice of the patents via Plaintiff's digital marking since at least August 31, 2021 (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11, 21).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of infringement under the ordinary observer test: Will a side-by-side comparison show that the accused "knockoff" products are substantially the same in overall visual appearance as the designs claimed in the '211 and '510 patents?
  2. A key legal question will be the impact of differing claim scope: How will the '510 Patent's disclaimer of the device's end pieces (via broken lines) affect the infringement analysis relative to the '211 Patent, which claims the entire device? This could lead to a finding of infringement of one patent but not the other, depending on the specific features of the accused products.
  3. A significant practical question will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: Given that the Defendants are alleged to be numerous, unidentified foreign entities operating through transient online stores, can the Plaintiff effectively obtain personal jurisdiction, and, if successful, enforce an injunction or damages award against these parties?