DCT

1:25-cv-12721

Flowbee Australia Pty Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12721, N.D. Ill., 10/31/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in the district by offering to sell and ship, and transacting business with consumers in, the Northern District of Illinois through an interactive e-commerce store.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s beekeeping products infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for an artificial honeycomb frame.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of components for modern beehives, a market where distinctive product appearance can be a significant commercial differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint describes an ongoing effort to combat what it characterizes as widespread online counterfeiting by e-commerce operators who conceal their identities. It does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the asserted patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-02-27 ’776 Patent Priority Date
2015 Plaintiff’s FLOW Hive Product Launch
2017-06-27 ’776 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-31 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D790,776 S - "Component for Artificial Honeycomb"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not function. While the complaint describes the commercial product as an "industry-changing frame design that allows beekeepers to safely and efficiently extract honey without harming any bees," the patent itself does not address a functional problem (Compl. ¶17). Instead, it secures the rights to a specific visual aesthetic for a honeycomb component.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the unique ornamental design for an artificial honeycomb component as depicted in its figures (D790,776 S, Figs. 1-8). The design consists of a tall, rectangular frame comprised of repeating, vertically-stacked, and partially-formed hexagonal cell structures, with a distinctive header and footer element (D790,776 S, Figs. 1, 2). The overall visual impression is one of a complex, repeating geometric pattern applied to a functional beekeeping object.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive design is a key aspect of the "FLOW Products," which are "broadly recognized by consumers as being sourced from Plaintiffs" (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a component for artificial honeycomb, as shown" (D790,776 S, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "Counterfeit Products" infringing the patented design (Compl. ¶3). Specifically, the complaint points to a product listing on eBay.com described as a "7X Upgraded Auto Honey Beehive Bee hive Frames + Beekeeping Brood Cedarwood Box" (Compl. p. 15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are sold through a "fully interactive commercial Internet e-commerce store" operated by Defendant (Compl. ¶3). The provided screenshot shows a complete beehive kit, including multiple artificial honeycomb frames, sold as a "Newest Upgraded" product (Compl. p. 15). The complaint alleges these products are part of a broader "illegal counterfeiting operation" that leverages the goodwill and reputation of Plaintiffs' genuine "FLOW Products" (Compl. ¶4, ¶43). An image in the complaint shows the accused product, a wooden beehive with plastic frames visible through a side window (Compl. p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. Instead, it presents its infringement argument through a side-by-side visual comparison, which is typical for design patent cases. The core allegation is that the accused product's design is a "reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the designs claimed in the FLOW HIVE Patent" (Compl. ¶19(a)). The legal test for design patent infringement is 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 provides a page with images of the patented design and Plaintiffs' commercial "FLOW Hive" product, captioned "Images from the FLOW HIVE Patent and of FLOW Products Incorporating the FLOW HIVE Patent in Comparison With" the accused product shown on the following page (Compl. p. 14). This juxtaposition is intended to demonstrate the substantial similarity between the patented design and the accused frames sold by Defendant (Compl. p. 15).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central question for the court will be whether the design of the accused honeycomb frames is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '776 Patent. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression of the designs, rather than a comparison of discrete features.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be what the accused product's design actually is. The infringement analysis will depend on the visual details of the physical products sold by Defendant, which may or may not be perfectly represented in the low-resolution marketing images included in the complaint (Compl. p. 15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings, and formal construction of textual terms is rare. The scope of the '776 Patent will be determined by the visual appearance of the component as shown in Figures 1-8 of the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a boilerplate allegation that Defendant's products "infringe directly and/or indirectly the FLOW HIVE Patent," but it does not plead specific facts to support a claim of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶45).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful (Compl. ¶47). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiffs' patent rights due to the popularity and success of the FLOW products and proceeded with "reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiffs' rights" (Compl. ¶42-43). The complaint frames Defendant's entire operation as an "illegal counterfeiting" scheme intended to trade on Plaintiffs' goodwill (Compl. ¶43).

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

  1. Substantial Similarity: The dispositive issue for the patent claim will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived by the resemblance between the accused honeycomb frames and the patented design, inducing them to purchase one supposing it to be the other?
  2. Enforcement and Identity: A practical and central challenge highlighted by the complaint is one of jurisdiction and enforcement: can the Plaintiff effectively identify, serve, and obtain relief against a defendant alleged to be an anonymous e-commerce operator based in the People's Republic of China who allegedly uses tactics to conceal their identity? (Compl. ¶21, ¶32).