DCT
1:25-cv-13394
Flowbee Australia Pty Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flowbee Australia Pty Ltd, Beeinventive Pty Ltd, and Cedar Anderson (Australia)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13394, N.D. Ill., 10/31/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in the district, conduct substantial business in the district, and/or offer to sell and ship accused products to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are selling and importing unauthorized products that infringe a patented design for an artificial honeycomb frame.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to apiculture, specifically to the design of artificial frames used within beehives to facilitate the collection of honey.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific prosecution history related to the patent-in-suit. The action is filed against a broad group of unnamed online retailers, a common strategy in anti-counterfeiting enforcement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-27 | D'776 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015 | Plaintiff launches the FLOW Hive product line |
| 2017-06-27 | U.S. Design Patent No. D790,776 S Issues |
| 2025-10-31 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D790,776 S (“Component for Artificial Honeycomb”), issued June 27, 2017 (the “’776 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff's commercial product, embodying the patented design, was an "industry-changing frame design that allows beekeepers to safely and efficiently extract honey without harming any bees" (Compl. ¶18).
- The Patented Solution: The ’776 Patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a "component for artificial honeycomb" (D’776 Patent, Title). The design, as depicted in the patent's figures, consists of the unique visual characteristics of the frame, including its overall proportions, the arrangement and aesthetic of the repeating, partially-formed cell structures on its faces, and the particular configuration of its top and bottom ends (D’776 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying this design have become "enormously popular" and are "broadly recognized by consumers as being sourced from Plaintiffs" (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the design as a whole as shown in the patent's drawings.
- The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a component for artificial honeycomb, as shown" (D’776 Patent, Claim).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products" referred to as "Counterfeit Products" that allegedly infringe the ’776 Patent (Compl. ¶1). A specific example identified is the "4Pcs Flow Hive Bee Hive Box Starter Kit" (Compl. p. 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are artificial honeycomb frames sold for use in beehives (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges they are sold by numerous operators of "Defendant Internet Stores" on major e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart, targeting consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶3, ¶22). The complaint provides an exemplary product listing from Amazon.com, which shows a product appearing visually similar to Plaintiff's commercial embodiment (Compl. p. 15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the level of attention a typical purchaser would, would believe the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges infringement through visual comparisons.
’776 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Ornamental Feature of Claimed Design | Alleged Infringing Visual Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall configuration of a tall, slender, rectangular frame with two primary faces. | The accused product is a tall, slender, rectangular frame with two primary faces of similar proportions. | ¶49; p. 15 | Figs. 1-4 |
| The specific repeating pattern of vertically-stacked, partially-formed honeycomb cell structures that form the texture and appearance of the primary faces. | The accused product displays a repeating pattern of vertically-stacked, partially-formed honeycomb cell structures that appears substantially identical to the patented design. | ¶49; p. 15 | Figs. 1-2 |
| The distinctive ornamental design of the top end of the frame, including its shape and channeled appearance. | The top end of the accused product incorporates a shape and channeled appearance creating the same visual impression as the patented design. | ¶49; p. 15 | Fig. 7 |
| The distinctive ornamental design of the bottom end of the frame. | The bottom end of the accused product appears to replicate the ornamental features shown in the patented design. | ¶49; p. 15 | Fig. 8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. A potential point of contention could be whether minor differences in manufacturing, material finish, or proportions between the accused products and the patent drawings are sufficient to avoid infringement.
- Technical Questions: A key legal question in design patent cases is the line between ornamental and functional features. The analysis raises the question: to what extent are the visual features of the honeycomb frame dictated by their utilitarian purpose (e.g., holding honey, fitting in a standard beehive) versus being ornamental choices protected by the ’776 Patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, "construction" involves determining the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than defining individual words. The primary issue is often distinguishing protected ornamental features from unprotected functional elements.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for [a] component for artificial honeycomb"
- Context and Importance: The case will likely hinge on the scope of what is considered "ornamental" in the claimed design. Defendants could argue that the design is primarily functional, and that any visual similarities are a result of utilitarian necessity, thus narrowing the scope of patent protection. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality defense is a common strategy in design patent cases.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Emphasizing Ornamentality): The patent claims the "ornamental design" for the component, not the component itself (D’776 Patent, Claim). Plaintiff may argue that while the frame has a function, the specific aesthetic choices—including the precise shape of the cell openings, the surface texturing, and the clean lines of the top and bottom structures as depicted in the figures—are ornamental and non-functional design choices that create a unique visual impression (D’776 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Emphasizing Functionality): A defendant may argue that the basic structure of a frame with repeating hexagonal cells is dictated by its function in apiculture. The complaint itself describes the functional advantages of the "industry-changing frame design" (Compl. ¶18), language that a defendant might use to argue that the design's features are driven by function and thus should receive narrow protection.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶48). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' actions constitute "willful patent infringement" (Compl. ¶50). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiff's rights and acted in "bad faith" to trade on the goodwill of the FLOW products (Compl. ¶45-46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, familiar with any relevant prior art designs for honeycomb frames, be deceived into purchasing the accused products believing them to be the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’776 Patent?
- The primary legal defense will likely focus on functionality: what aspects of the claimed design for the honeycomb frame will the court deem to be purely functional and therefore outside the scope of design patent protection, and what aspects will it deem ornamental?
- A central practical question will be one of jurisdiction and enforcement: given that the case is brought against a large group of online sellers identified only in a schedule, a significant challenge for the Plaintiff may be establishing personal jurisdiction over each defendant and effectively enforcing any resulting injunction or monetary award.