DCT

3:25-cv-00702

Shenzhen Kanger Technology Co Ltd v. R&M Wholesale Distribution Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00702, S.D. Miss., 09/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants being Mississippi corporations with principal places of business in the state, conducting significant business in the district, and placing the accused products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that they would be sold in Mississippi.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ counterfeit e-cigarette products infringe its U.S. design patent for an electronic cigarette.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer electronics sector, specifically concerning the ornamental design of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) devices, a highly competitive market where visual appearance is a key differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Defendants acted as authorized distributors for Plaintiff’s genuine products. Plaintiff also alleges that it sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendants on August 18, 2025, which were ignored, a fact that may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-12-22 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,989
2025-06-24 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,989 Issues
2025-Summer Plaintiff alleges discovery of Defendants' accused sales
2025-08-18 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letters to Defendants
2025-09-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,989 - "Electronic cigarette"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,080,989, entitled “Electronic cigarette,” issued June 24, 2025 (the “’989 Patent”). (Compl. ¶29; ’989 Patent, p. 3).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The objective is to create a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design that distinguishes a product in the marketplace. (Compl. ¶119).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’989 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for an e-cigarette as depicted in its figures. (Compl. ¶121). The design consists of a transparent, cylindrical main body situated between two solid, slightly larger-diameter end caps, and a distinctive, multi-tiered mouthpiece with several circumferential ridges. (’989 Patent, FIG. 1). The overall visual impression is one of a sleek, modern vaping device with a stylized, functional mouthpiece.
  • Technical Importance: In the crowded e-cigarette market, a unique and recognizable product design serves as a source identifier and is a key driver of commercial success and brand recognition. (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the design as a whole as depicted in the patent's drawings.
  • The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for an electronic cigarette as shown and described." (’989 Patent, p. 3).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "counterfeit Alit Hookahlit 40k Dispo" e-cigarette products, sold under the "Alit" and "Hookahlit" brands. (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are disposable e-cigarettes. (Compl. ¶45). The complaint alleges these are "counterfeit and non-genuine devices" sold through the same distribution channels that Defendants previously used to sell Plaintiff's authentic products. (Compl. ¶41, ¶48). The complaint further alleges that the brand names "Alit" and "Hookahlit" were chosen to be confusingly similar to Plaintiff's "Olit" and "Hookalit" trademarks by simply substituting one letter and adding another. (Compl. ¶40). A screenshot from a website shows the accused "ALIT HOOKAHLIT 40K PUFFS DISPO" product offered for sale alongside Plaintiff's genuine "OLIT HOOKALIT 40K PUFFS DISPO" product, illustrating the alleged similarities in branding and product appearance. (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused article thinking it was the patented one. The complaint's allegations are framed around this test.

The complaint alleges that the accused "Alit Hookahlit" products embody a design that is "substantially the same" as the patented design in the ’989 Patent. (Compl. ¶122). Plaintiff asserts that an ordinary e-cigarette purchaser viewing the accused product would recognize its design as substantially the same as the patented design, creating a confusingly similar overall impression. (Compl. ¶122). The complaint provides a screenshot comparing flavor inventory lists for the "ALIT HOOKAHLIT" and "OLIT HOOKALIT" products, which it alleges shows "nearly fully overlapping flavor offerings" with "unique non-descriptive names," suggesting an intent to copy the entire product line, not just the design. (Compl. p. 12, ¶44). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused products are "virtually identical" to Plaintiff's products that embody the patented design. (Compl. ¶43).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central issue will be the application of the ordinary observer test to the accused products. Does the overall visual appearance of the "Alit Hookahlit" e-cigarette deceive an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, into believing it is the same design as that shown in the ’989 Patent?
    • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will involve a side-by-side visual comparison of the accused product's ornamental features (e.g., body proportions, end cap design, mouthpiece shape and texture) against the specific design claimed in the drawings of the ’989 Patent. The complaint's allegation that the infringing products are "identical to the predecessor products Plaintiff supplied to Defendants" may simplify this comparison if the predecessor products are shown to embody the patented design. (Compl. ¶123).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

This section is not applicable, as design patents do not have claim terms that are construed in the manner of utility patents. The claim is defined by the drawings.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). (Compl. ¶127). This is based on allegations that Defendants directed and authorized manufacturers to make the infringing products, provided training and instructions to those manufacturers, and disseminated marketing materials and user guides to resellers and distributors, thereby encouraging their direct infringement. (Compl. ¶128-130). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶131).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful and deliberate. (Compl. ¶132). The asserted basis for willfulness includes Defendants' alleged pre-existing knowledge of the patented design through their prior business relationship as an authorized distributor of Plaintiff's genuine products (Compl. ¶132), and their alleged continuation of infringing conduct after receiving actual notice of the ’989 Patent via cease-and-desist letters on August 18, 2025 (Compl. ¶49, ¶133). Plaintiff seeks enhanced damages and attorneys' fees based on this alleged conduct. (Compl. ¶140).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Under the "ordinary observer" test, is the ornamental design of the accused "Alit Hookahlit" product substantially the same in its overall visual effect as the design claimed in the ’989 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them in the eyes of a typical consumer?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of intent and knowledge: Given the alleged prior distributorship relationship and subsequent direct copying, will the evidence demonstrate that Defendants knew of or were willfully blind to the likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, thereby supporting a claim for enhanced damages?