1:25-cv-14431
Kuiper Ventures LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kuiper Ventures LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: HK Zixuan Trade Ltd (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips & Bathke, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14431, N.D. Ill., 01/04/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s alleged business activities targeting U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores on Amazon, offering shipping to Chicago, and accepting payment in U.S. dollars.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online sale of travel blanket pouches infringes a design patent covering the ornamental features of such a product.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer travel accessories market, where the ornamental appearance of a product can be a significant factor in purchasing decisions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff submitted "numerous reports to the platform hosting the ecommerce store to no avail," suggesting an attempt at informal enforcement was unsuccessful.
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 Issues |
| 2026-01-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,059,900 S - *"Blanket Pouch with Rear Sleeve"*
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the specification does not articulate a specific technical problem. The subject matter is an article of manufacture described as a "travel blanket pouch" (Compl. ¶12).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental design for a "blanket pouch with rear sleeve" as depicted in its figures ('900 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The claimed design consists of a generally rectangular, soft-sided pouch with rounded corners, a zipper running along the majority of one of the short sides, and a fabric sleeve or band affixed across the rear face of the pouch ('900 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 6).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges 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 for "The ornamental design for a blanket pouch with rear sleeve as shown" ('900 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article depicted in the solid lines of the patent's drawings.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses unspecified travel blanket pouch products sold by the Defendant through e-commerce stores on the Amazon platform (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentalities are consumer products sold online that allegedly embody the patented design (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s sales on platforms like Amazon directly undercut the Plaintiff’s sales of its authorized product (Compl. ¶24). The complaint references "screenshots of listings" in Exhibit 2, which is described as showing the accused products being offered for sale and shipment into the U.S. and Chicago, Illinois (Compl. ¶¶26, 28-29).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is 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 alleges this standard is met (Compl. ¶36).
D1,059,900 S Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a blanket pouch with rear sleeve as shown. | The complaint alleges that products offered for sale by Defendant, as shown in Exhibit 2, are "substantially the same" as the patented design and that an ordinary observer would be deceived. | ¶36 | Figs. 1-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Scope: The central dispute will be a direct visual comparison between the design shown in the '900 Patent and the Defendant's accused products. The case will turn on whether any differences between the two designs are substantial enough to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived.
- Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint references screenshots in an exhibit that is not attached to the pleading itself (Compl. Ex. 2), the actual appearance of the accused product is not yet on the record. The primary point of contention will be the factual record developed in discovery showing the precise design of the products sold by Defendant.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction in design patent cases is typically limited, as the drawings themselves are considered to define the scope of the claim.
- The Term: The overall visual appearance defined by the solid lines in Figures 1-8.
- Context and Importance: The primary legal question is the scope of the claimed design as a whole. Practitioners may focus on the distinction between claimed and unclaimed features.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the overall ornamental design shown, not any single feature in isolation. An argument for infringement could be based on the accused product capturing the overall visual impression of the patented design, even with minor differences.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification explicitly states that "The broken lines shown in FIGS. 2, 4, and 5-8 indicate stitching," which is environmental and not part of the claimed design ('900 Patent, Description). A defense might focus on showing that the similarity between the products resides only in such functional or unclaimed elements, while the claimed ornamental features differ.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendant from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the Patent" (Compl. p. 6).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that the "Defendant's conduct has been, is, and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶39). It does not plead specific facts showing pre-suit knowledge of the patent, basing the allegation on the infringing conduct itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: Will a side-by-side comparison of the accused product and the drawings of the '900 Patent lead to the conclusion that an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the products are the same design? The outcome will depend entirely on the visual evidence presented.
- A key practical question will be one of enforcement and jurisdiction: Given the Defendant is an entity identified as being in China and operating through online stores, the case may face significant challenges related to discovery, proving the scope of U.S. sales, and ultimately collecting any monetary judgment awarded.