DCT

1:23-cv-01345

Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co Ltd v. Group Vertical LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-14342, N.D. Ill., 09/30/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant operates an interactive online store on Amazon.com through which it targets and sells products to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pop It Fidget Ball Toy" infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a silicone squeeze ball.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer products sector, specifically concerning fidget toys, a popular category of stress-relief and sensory products.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-08-20 D'787 Patent Priority Date
2021-09-16 D'787 Patent Application Filing Date
2023-01-17 D'787 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D975,787 - "Fidget Toy," issued January 17, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve a technical problem but instead protect a "new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" (35 U.S.C. § 171). The patent sought to protect a specific ornamental appearance for a fidget toy.
  • The Patented Solution: The D'787 Patent claims the ornamental design for a fidget toy, characterized by a spherical ball with its surface covered in a pattern of circular, convex protrusions or "bubbles" (D’787 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design consists of the visual characteristics embodied in the shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation of the toy as shown in the patent's drawings (D’787 Patent, "CLAIM").
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was the "first to market" with its product embodying the patented design, suggesting the design's novelty contributed to its market entry (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a fidget toy, as shown and described." (D'787 Patent, "CLAIM"). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the toy depicted in the patent's eight figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is the "Pop It Fidget Ball Toy," also referred to as "Bulk Fidget Toys Pop It Balls" (Compl. ¶¶1, 15; p. 7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused product as a "silicone squeeze ball" and "fidget toy" marketed for stress relief (Compl. ¶¶1, 12; p. 7). The product is sold online through Defendant's internet stores, including a storefront on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶3, 11; p. 7).
  • Plaintiff alleges Defendant markets its product using a nearly identical name to Plaintiff’s own "POP IT BALL" product, which Plaintiff asserts has established "good reputation and quality reviews" (Compl. ¶¶5, 12). The complaint includes a screenshot of Defendant's Amazon product listing, showing a multi-colored, 12-pack of the accused toys (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard 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 presents its infringement theory through a direct visual comparison.

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the accused product and the patented design (Compl. ¶15). This comparison forms the basis of the infringement allegation. The table below breaks down the core ornamental features based on the complaint's visual evidence.

Ornamental Feature of the D’787 Patented Design Alleged Infringing Feature of the Accused Product Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An overall spherical shape for the article of manufacture. The accused product is a spherical ball. ¶15 Fig. 1
A surface covered with a repeating pattern of convex, circular "bubbles" or protrusions. The accused product has a surface covered with a repeating pattern of convex, circular "bubbles." ¶15 Fig. 1
A visible seam or parting line around the equator of the sphere, separating it into two hemispheres. The accused product appears to have a similar equatorial seam, though this is less clear in the provided photograph. ¶15 Fig. 1
The arrangement, density, and relative size of the protrusions across the surface of the sphere. The accused product exhibits a visually similar arrangement, density, and relative size of protrusions. ¶15 Fig. 1

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused product's design is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The side-by-side visual provided in the complaint suggests a high degree of similarity in overall shape and the pattern of surface ornamentation (Compl. ¶15). A court will compare the accused product to the patent's line drawings, not to the plaintiff's commercial product.
  • Impact of Color: The D'787 patent claims the shape and configuration of the toy, not its color, as it consists of black-and-white line drawings. The accused product is shown in multi-color variations (Compl. ¶15; p. 7). The differing colors between the accused product and Plaintiff's own product may be a factor in the "ordinary observer" analysis, although color is not part of the claimed design itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent cases, the "claim" is typically understood to be the drawings themselves, and disputes over the meaning of written terms are rare. The analysis will likely focus on the visual comparison required by the ordinary observer test rather than the construction of a specific term.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement but does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as acts by third parties that are encouraged or enabled by the Defendant (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that the accused product is "virtually identical" to the patented design and that Defendant "explicitly markets its fidget toy... as a 'Pop It Fidget Ball Toy,' just like Kean's POP IT BALL," which Plaintiff claims "cannot be a coincidence" (Compl. ¶12). This suggests Plaintiff will argue that the similarity in name and appearance is evidence of copying.

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "Pop It Fidget Ball Toy" substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'787 patent's drawings, such that an observer would be deceived?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of intent: Can Plaintiff produce evidence beyond the visual similarity of the products and their names to support its claim that Defendant's alleged infringement was willful, potentially justifying enhanced damages?