1:25-cv-11818
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, Alleged to be China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-11818, N.D. Ill., 09/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators are selling metal nibbler drill attachments that infringe its U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The technology involves mechanical attachments that convert the rotational motion of a standard power drill into a punching or "nibbling" action for cutting sheet metal.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies six prior related cases filed in 2024 and 2025 involving some of the same intellectual property, suggesting an ongoing enforcement campaign against online sellers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-12-06 | ’076 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-01-01 | Earliest alleged date of Plaintiff's U.S. product sales ("Since at least 2023") |
| 2023-11-28 | ’076 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-09-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,006,076 - "Metal nibbler drill attachment"
The Invention Explained
Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a functional problem but rather protect the novel, non-obvious ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The goal is to create a unique and visually distinct product identity (’076 Patent, Title).
The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a metal nibbler drill attachment. Key ornamental features include the overall configuration of two stacked, circular cutting/guide wheels, the shape of the housing connecting them, a four-bolt mounting flange for the drill, and the distinctive shape of an attached bent-rod handle (’076 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). The design is illustrated from multiple perspectives to define its complete three-dimensional appearance (’076 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
Technical Importance: In the market for tools and accessories, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a source identifier, associating the product's appearance with a particular manufacturer's quality and reputation (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
Design patents typically contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a metal nibbler drill attachment, as shown and described" (’076 Patent, CLAIM). This claim protects the overall visual impression of the design depicted in the patent's ten figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Infringing Products" are identified as "metal nibbler drill attachment apparatus" sold by numerous unnamed e-commerce operators under various "Seller Aliases" (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" on platforms like Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress, offering for sale and shipping the accused products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 13).
The complaint asserts that the products sold by the various defendants are, on information and belief, "the same product" manufactured from a common source (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 19). The complaint provides various figures from the asserted patent to illustrate the patented design, such as the perspective view in FIG. 1 (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’076 Patent (Compl. ¶ 26). In design patent cases, infringement is determined by 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 complaint asserts direct infringement by alleging that the accused products embody the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 26). The complaint includes several views of the patented design, such as a front view in FIG. 3 and a side view in FIG. 5, to establish the specific ornamental features being protected (Compl. pp. 7, 9). The core of the infringement allegation is that the visual appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the design shown in the figures of the ’076 Patent.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be a factual comparison for each accused product: is its overall ornamental appearance substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’076 Patent, such that it would deceive an ordinary observer?
- Technical Questions: While design patents are ornamental, the analysis may involve comparing specific visual features, such as the contours of the housing, the configuration of the cutting wheels, and the specific shape of the handle, between the patented design and each accused product.
V. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
While the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, the body of the complaint focuses on direct infringement by the sellers (Compl. p. 20). It alleges that Defendants work in "active concert" and are "inter-related," which may support theories of joint liability (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 22).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶ 23). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" manufacture, import, and sell the accused products (Compl. ¶ 22).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central procedural issue will be one of enforcement practicability: Can the Plaintiff effectively obtain jurisdiction and enforce a judgment against a large, diffuse, and allegedly anonymous group of foreign e-commerce operators who use multiple aliases to sell their products?
- The core substantive question will be a factual one of visual comparison: For each of the accused products sold by the Defendants, is its overall ornamental appearance substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’076 Patent, when viewed through the eyes of an ordinary observer?
- A key damages question will concern proof and collection: Assuming infringement is found, what is the appropriate measure of damages—such as Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289—and how can Plaintiff effectively prove and collect those damages from the numerous alleged infringers?