DCT

4:22-cv-12963

Choon's Design LLC v. Anhetoy

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Choon's Design LLC (Michigan)
    • Defendant: 864SHOP, AILYTEC INC., ANHETOY, and multiple other e-commerce entities (Peoples' Republic of China)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Amburn Law PLLC
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-12963, E.D. Mich., 12/07/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are not resident in the United States and may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges Defendants target and conduct business with consumers in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ e-commerce sales of "mini-loom" craft kits infringe a patent related to a device and kit for creating linked items, such as bracelets, from elastic bands.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the toy and craft sector, providing a simplified method and device for weaving elastic bands into accessories, a market popularized by Plaintiff's "Rainbow Loom" product.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges significant commercial success and industry awards for its "Rainbow Loom" products, which it asserts embody the patent-in-suit. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, the patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 8,899,631) was the subject of an ex parte reexamination. The resulting Reexamination Certificate, scheduled to issue on December 11, 2024, cancels one asserted claim, confirms the patentability of several others, and confirms the patentability of other asserted claims in an amended form. This proceeding may introduce issues of claim scope and the doctrine of intervening rights concerning potential damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-11-05 '631 Patent Priority Date
2011-12-31 Plaintiff's Rainbow Loom Launch (late 2011)
2014-12-02 '631 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-07 Complaint Filing Date
2023-08-09 '631 Patent Reexamination Request Filed
2024-12-11 '631 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issue Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,899,631 - "BRUNNIAN LINK MAKING DEVICE AND KIT," issued December 2, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background notes that traditional kits for making items like bracelets from threads and beads rely heavily on the individual's skill, making it difficult to create a "usable and desirable item" ('631 Patent, col. 1:15-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a kit that simplifies the creation of linked items from elastic bands. Its core component is a "template" (a small loom) featuring specifically designed pins that hold an initial elastic band. These pins have features like flanges and "access grooves" that facilitate the use of a hook to easily and securely loop subsequent bands, forming a chain structure known as a Brunnian link ('631 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:52-58).
  • Technical Importance: The patented device and method provide a simplified construction process, making it easier for "people of many skill and artistic levels to successfully create a desirable and durable wearable item" ('631 Patent, col. 1:20-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10, among others (Compl. ¶32). The infringement analysis in the complaint focuses on claim 10 as an example (Compl. ¶33).
  • Independent Claim 10:
    • A kit for creating an item consisting of a series of links, the kit comprising:
    • a template including at least two pins spaced apart from each other, each of the pins including a first end, a base end and an access groove; and
    • at least one clip including inward facing ends for securing ends of the series of links together.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "mini-loom kits" sold by the Defendants through e-commerce websites such as Amazon and eBay (Compl. ¶1, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "mini-loom kits including rubber bands; one or more mini-looms; clips; and one or more hooks" intended for creating items like bracelets (Compl. ¶36). A photograph in the complaint displays these components, showing a small pink plastic loom, colored rubber bands, white S-shaped clips, and a pink plastic hook (Compl. p. 13). The complaint characterizes these products as "knockoff products" that directly compete with Plaintiff's own kits and trade upon Plaintiff's goodwill (Compl. ¶1, ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'631 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a template including at least two pins spaced apart from each other, each of the pins including a first end, a base end and an access groove The accused kits include a "mini-loom" which is alleged to be the claimed template. A photograph with annotations identifies the features of the accused mini-loom that allegedly correspond to the two pins, first end, base end, and access groove required by the claim (Compl. p. 14). ¶39, ¶40 col. 2:25-30
at least one clip including inward facing ends for securing ends of the series of links together The accused kits include "S-shaped plastic parts" that are used to attach the ends of the rubber band links together (Compl. ¶39). A photograph shows these clips, which are alleged to meet this limitation (Compl. p. 13). The complaint further alleges these clips have "inward facing ends for securing ends of the series of links together" (Compl. ¶39). ¶39 col. 2:46-51

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused "S-shaped plastic parts" meet the limitation of a "clip including inward facing ends" (Compl. ¶39). The patent specification, however, describes the embodiment of the clip as "generally C-shaped" ('631 Patent, col. 2:46). This raises the question of whether the claim term, when read in light of the specification, can be construed broadly enough to cover an S-shaped structure, or if it is limited to the C-shaped embodiment shown.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides a labeled photograph mapping claim elements to the accused mini-loom (Compl. p. 14). A potential point of dispute may be whether the identified "access groove" on the accused device functions in the same way as the groove described in the patent, which extends "entirely through the pins" ('631 Patent, col. 2:32-36). The evidence presented will need to establish not just the presence of a groove, but its structural and functional correspondence to the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "access groove"

    • Context and Importance: The structure of the access groove is fundamental to the template's function of simplifying the linking process. Infringement hinges on the groove in the accused loom corresponding to this claimed feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because its structural definition in the specification is quite specific.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the depth or full dimensions of the groove, which might support an argument that any groove sufficient to allow a hook to operate infringes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the groove as extending "entirely through the pins 28A, 28B including through the flanges 30A, 30B and the bases 32A, 32B and the bridge 36" ('631 Patent, col. 2:32-36). This description of a full-height, open channel could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to devices with this specific structure.

  • The Term: "clip including inward facing ends"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused products use S-shaped clips, whereas the patent specification illustrates a C-shaped clip. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this element will depend heavily on claim construction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the plain meaning of "inward facing ends" is met by an S-shaped clip, as its ends face inward toward the center of the "S" curve where the band is held.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states, "the example clip 16 is generally C-shaped with inwardly facing ends 48" ('631 Patent, col. 2:46-47). A party could argue this language defines the term by its embodiment, potentially limiting the scope to C-shaped clips or those structurally equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement. It claims contributory infringement on the basis that Defendants know of the patent and sell the kits, which allegedly have no substantial non-infringing use, to customers who directly infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 46-48). It alleges inducement based on Defendants' marketing and instructions, which allegedly encourage customers to use the kits in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 55-56).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported "actual knowledge of the '631 patent" and its infringement, which Plaintiff claims is supported by the marking of its own products with the patent number (Compl. ¶41, ¶60). The complaint also asserts that the filing of the lawsuit itself establishes knowledge for any ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶41).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "clip including inward facing ends," which is described in the patent's specification with a "C-shaped" embodiment, be construed to cover the "S-shaped" clips included in the accused kits?
  • A second central issue, arising from events after the complaint's filing, will be the impact of the ex parte reexamination. The court must determine the scope of the asserted claims that were amended during that proceeding and address whether the doctrine of intervening rights limits Plaintiff's ability to recover damages for infringement that occurred before the reexamination certificate's issuance.
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: does the visual and descriptive evidence show that the features of the accused mini-loom, particularly its "access groove," are structurally and functionally the same as those required by the patent's claims, as construed by the court?