DCT

1:25-cv-12135

Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co Ltd v. Moon Stars Online Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12135, N.D. Ill., 10/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants operate interactive commercial online stores that target and sell products to consumers in Illinois, and have sold and shipped allegedly infringing products into the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ fidget toy products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a toy.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a consumer product in the fidget toy market, a segment known for rapid innovation and reliance on distinct visual appeal.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Shenzhen Shenchenxing Trading Co., Ltd. was a party to a prior lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, which resulted in a license agreement. This history is presented to support the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-08-20 ’787 Patent Priority Date
2023-01-17 ’787 Patent Issue Date
2025-05-01 License Agreement with Shenzhen Shenchenxing Trading Co., Ltd. terminates
2025-10-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D975,787 - "Fidget Toy"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D975,787, “Fidget Toy,” issued January 17, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a toy product. (Compl. ¶9; ’787 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a fidget toy. The design consists of a generally spherical body whose surface is covered with a repeating pattern of raised, circular, convex protrusions, commonly known as "poppable bubbles." The figures illustrate a distinct equatorial line bisecting the sphere into two hemispheres. (’787 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer toy market, a unique and recognizable aesthetic design can be a significant commercial differentiator, distinguishing a product from competitors. (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the D975,787 patent. (Compl. ¶22).
  • As a design patent, the claim is directed to the visual design as a whole, rather than a combination of text-based elements. The claim reads: "The ornamental design for a fidget toy, as shown and described." (’787 Patent, Claim). The core visual features comprising the overall design include:
    • A generally spherical overall shape.
    • A surface covered with a plurality of raised, circular protrusions.
    • A dividing line around the equator of the sphere.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Products" sold on the Amazon.com storefronts "Moon And Stars INC" and "moringstars." (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 6-7). Specific product listings are identified by Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) B09NW1V6S9 and B09LYGXZHH. (Compl. ¶15).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are described as toy products sold directly to consumers via online commercial storefronts. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 8). The complaint alleges that the accused products are "virtually identical" to the Plaintiff's product, featuring the "same coloring and molding patterns." (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides an image, Figure 1, of what it identifies as an example of Plaintiff's toy product embodying the patented design. (Compl. ¶8, Figure 1). This figure shows a multi-colored, spherical toy covered in poppable bubbles.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a comparison in its Exhibit 3, which was not provided with the complaint document, so a claim chart summary is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products meet this standard. It asserts that the Defendants sell products that are "virtually identical" to the patented design. (Compl. ¶15). The complaint further alleges that after an investigator purchased the accused products, an inspection and comparison with the patent's claim "demonstrates Defendants' infringement of United States Patent No. D975,787." (Compl. ¶17). The core of the infringement allegation rests on the asserted high degree of visual similarity between the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' products and the design depicted in the figures of the ’787 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question is one of visual scope: is the overall visual impression created by the accused products substantially the same as that of the patented design? While the complaint alleges the products are "virtually identical," the determination will depend on a side-by-side comparison by the fact-finder.
    • Technical Questions: For design patents, the analysis is visual, not technical. The key evidentiary question will be how the visual features of the accused products—such as the shape, size, density, and arrangement of the surface protrusions—compare to the design claimed in the patent drawings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the focus is on the visual representations in the drawings rather than the construction of textual terms. The single claim is for the design "as shown and described." However, the title of the article of manufacture may be considered.

  • The Term: "fidget toy"
  • Context and Importance: This term identifies the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. Its interpretation is unlikely to be a central point of contention for infringement, which relies on a visual comparison. However, practitioners may focus on this term during validity analysis, as it helps define the scope of relevant prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a textual definition, which may suggest the term should be given its ordinary meaning within the field of consumer toys.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures themselves provide the primary definition of the "fidget toy" at issue, depicting a specific spherical object with poppable surface features. (’787 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). The interpretation is therefore inherently tied to the visual disclosure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing conduct and seeks to enjoin aiding and abetting. (Compl. ¶22; Prayer for Relief, ¶A(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts, such as providing instructions or encouragement to a third-party direct infringer, that would be necessary to support a claim for induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful. (Compl. ¶19). This allegation is primarily based on a prior patent infringement lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant Shenzhen Shenchenxing Trading Co., Ltd., which allegedly resulted in a license agreement and therefore provided that defendant with pre-suit knowledge of the ’787 Patent. (Compl. ¶19). The complaint further alleges the defendants are an "interrelated group," which may be an attempt to impute this knowledge to the other defendant, Moon and Stars Online Inc. (Compl. ¶12).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: will an ordinary observer find the overall ornamental design of the accused toys to be substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the figures of the ’787 Patent? The case will depend on the visual evidence presented, testing the complaint's assertion that the products are "virtually identical."
  • A key secondary issue will be one of legal and evidentiary linkage: can Plaintiff successfully prove that the two defendants constitute an "interrelated group" such that the pre-suit knowledge of the patent held by Shenzhen Shenchenxing Trading Co., Ltd. can be imputed to Moon and Stars Online Inc. for the purposes of establishing willful infringement?
  • Finally, should infringement be found, a central question on damages will be the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 289, which allows a design patent owner to recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of articles bearing the infringing design, a remedy distinct from and often greater than a reasonable royalty.