DCT

1:25-cv-14403

Kuiper Ventures LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14403, N.D. Ill., 01/04/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants structure their business to target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, and accept orders for infringing products to be shipped into the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of travel blanket pouches on e-commerce platforms infringes its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of such a product.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a consumer good—a travel blanket pouch—where visual appearance can be a key differentiator and source identifier in a competitive market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint describes itself as a "design patent infringement case" and notes that it is part of a broader category of "Schedule A litigation," which typically involves numerous foreign e-commerce sellers. Plaintiff alleges it conducted a "thorough investigation" pre-filing and unsuccessfully attempted to resolve infringement through platform reporting mechanisms before filing suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-09-21 U.S. Patent No. D1,059,900 S Priority Date
2025-02-04 U.S. Patent No. D1,059,900 S Issue Date
2025-11-25 Complaint Verification Date
2026-01-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,059,900 S - *“Blanket pouch with rear sleeve”*

  • Issued: February 4, 2025 (the "’’900 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but instead protect novel, non-obvious ornamental designs for articles of manufacture (Compl. ¶12). The patent aims to protect the unique visual appearance of a travel blanket pouch.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific aesthetic and ornamental appearance of the blanket pouch as depicted in its figures ('’900 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design consists of a generally rectangular, pillow-like pouch with soft corners, a prominent zipper running along one of the shorter sides, and a flat sleeve affixed to the rear face, presumably for attaching the pouch to luggage handles ('’900 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 6). The broken lines in the figures indicate stitching, which is part of the article's structure but does not form part of the claimed ornamental design ('’900 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the "success of Plaintiff's product, protected by the Patent, has resulted in significant infringement," suggesting the design has achieved commercial recognition (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a blanket pouch with rear sleeve as shown." ('’900 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential elements of the claim are the visual features of the pouch as depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings, including:
    • The overall shape and proportions of the pouch.
    • The visual appearance of the zipper and its placement.
    • The appearance and placement of the rear sleeve.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "travel blanket pouch[es]" offered for sale, sold, and imported by the Defendants through e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶12, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants sell the "same or similar infringing products" as those sold by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶36). These products are allegedly sold through "fully interactive ecommerce stores" that target U.S. consumers, thereby undercutting the Plaintiff's sales of its authorized product on the same platforms (Compl. ¶5, ¶24). The complaint references screenshots of the accused product listings in its Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶26). One such screenshot in Exhibit 2, as described in the complaint, shows an allegedly infringing product listing on an e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent 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 is the patented design. The complaint alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶52). As the complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit, the infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶52). The central infringement allegation is that a comparison of the accused products, as shown in screenshots in Exhibit 2, with the design claimed in the '’900 Patent would lead an ordinary observer to be deceived (Compl. ¶52). The analysis will therefore depend on a visual comparison of the overall appearance of the accused pouches against the specific ornamental features shown in the figures of the '’900 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question is one of visual scope: Is the overall visual impression created by the Defendants' accused pouches "substantially the same" as the specific ornamental design claimed in the '’900 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived?
    • Technical Questions: While not a technical utility patent, a key factual question will be whether minor differences between the accused products and the patent drawings are sufficient to distinguish the designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer, or if they are insignificant details that do not alter the overall visual impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is typically construed by reference to the figures. The court provides a verbal description of the claimed design rather than construing specific terms.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design...as shown"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the patent is defined entirely by the visual representation in the drawings. The key issue is not the definition of a word, but the overall visual impression created by the solid-line drawings in Figures 1-8. Practitioners may focus on the fact that the broken lines in the patent figures explicitly denote unclaimed subject matter (stitching), which could narrow the scope of protection by disclaiming any particular stitching pattern as part of the ornamental design ('’900 Patent, Description).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the design covers any travel pouch with a similar overall rectangular, soft-edged shape, side zipper, and rear sleeve, asserting these are the dominant visual features that create the overall impression.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the design is limited to the exact proportions, zipper pull design, and sleeve dimensions depicted in the figures, contending that these specific details are what make the design novel and ornamental.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations supporting induced or contributory infringement. However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the Patent" (Prayer for Relief ¶A.ii).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendants conduct has been, is, and continues to be willful" and seeks treble damages (Compl. ¶55; Prayer for Relief ¶G). The complaint does not specify whether this allegation is based on pre-suit or post-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Will an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, find the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' accused travel pouches to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '’900 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to avoid infringement?
  • A key procedural question will be joinder and personal jurisdiction: Does the complaint, which groups numerous foreign entities, provide sufficient factual support to demonstrate that the Defendants are part of a single enterprise or that their conduct arises from the same series of transactions, as required for proper joinder, and that each has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum? (Compl. ¶34, ¶41-49).