Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona)
  • Defendant: Ci Xi Three (Jurisdiction Undetermined, alleged to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdiction)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01637, N.D. Ill., 02/17/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant targets business activities toward U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, through an interactive e-commerce store. This includes offering shipping to Illinois and accepting payment in U.S. dollars.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce store is making, using, selling, and/or importing hairbrushes that infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "Bounce Curl Design" hairbrush.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer hair care products sector, specifically concerning the unique ornamental design of a hair styling tool.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative patent challenges related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 - "Hair Brush"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527, "Hair Brush," issued May 28, 2024 (the “'527 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a unique visual design for a hairbrush.
• The Patented Solution: The ’527 Patent claims the specific ornamental design of a hairbrush D’527 Patent, claim The design features a handle that tapers to a point, a brush head with multiple rows of bristles, and distinctive scalloped or tooth-like ridges along the sides of the brush head D’527 Patent, FIG. 1 D’527 Patent, FIG. 4 The end-on views show the arrangement and angle of the bristle rows D’527 Patent, FIG. 2 D’527 Patent, FIG. 3 The overall visual impression is a combination of these elements.
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" which are "widely recognized by consumers" and associated with quality and innovation Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described" D’527 Patent, claim
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • The overall shape and proportion of the brush, including the head and handle.
  • The arrangement of bristle rows on the brush head.
  • The series of prominent, scalloped ridges along both longitudinal sides of the brush head.
  • The pointed, "rat-tail" style of the handle.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Products," namely a hairbrush that allegedly infringes the ’527 Patent Compl. ¶3 The complaint alleges these products are sold through an e-commerce store operating under the seller alias "Ci Xi Three" Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Defendant operates a "fully interactive, e-commerce store" that targets U.S. consumers, including residents of Illinois Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶15 The store allegedly offers for sale and sells products that embody the patented "Bounce Curl Design" Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶25 The complaint includes several figures from the ’527 Patent to represent the design that is allegedly being infringed Compl. pp. 4-5 A perspective view of the patented design is provided as FIG. 1 Compl. p. 4 The complaint alleges these online stores often use content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from an authorized retailer Compl. ¶16

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for infringement of a design patent 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 that the Infringing Products directly and/or indirectly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’527 Patent Compl. ¶25

Claim Chart Summary

As this is a design patent, the infringement analysis is based on the overall visual appearance. The complaint does not provide a traditional element-by-element claim chart. The table below summarizes the allegation that the accused product embodies the patented design as a whole.

’527 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Question: The central issue will be a visual comparison between the accused product and the design claimed in the ’527 Patent. The primary question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer would find the two designs to be substantially the same, such that the resemblance is deceptive.
• Scope Questions: The scope of a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects, not its functional features. A potential point of contention could be whether any similarities between the accused product and the patented design are dictated by function rather than ornamentation, although the complaint does not raise this issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, claim construction is typically a matter of describing the claimed visual design rather than defining specific textual terms. The claim is understood to be the design as depicted in the patent's figures.

• The "Term": The ornamental design for the hair brush.
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the visual scope of the design. The court will need to determine which features of the drawings are ornamental and contribute to the overall visual impression that is protected.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described" D’527 Patent, claim Parties seeking a broader scope might argue that the overall visual impression created by the unique combination of the handle shape, brush head, and side ridges is the core of the invention, and minor deviations in any single feature do not escape infringement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Parties seeking a narrower scope might focus on the precise details shown in the figures, arguing that the specific shape and number of the scalloped side ridges, the exact curvature of the handle, and the bristle layout are all required limitations D’527 Patent, FIG. 4 D’527 Patent, FIG. 6 The protection would thus be limited to designs that are nearly identical in all these respects.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that the Defendant's products infringe "directly and/or indirectly" Compl. ¶25 The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing Compl. p. 10 However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement beyond the primary allegation of direct infringement through sales.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful Compl. ¶22 The basis for this allegation appears to be the general assertion that Defendant is "knowingly and willfully" importing, distributing, and selling the Infringing Products without authorization Compl. ¶21

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

• Evidentiary Comparison: A dispositive issue will be a direct visual comparison. The central factual question is whether the accused hairbrush sold by Defendant is "substantially the same" as the design depicted in the ’527 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer. Resolution will depend on evidence of the accused product's appearance, which is not included in the complaint.
• Willfulness and Damages: A key legal question will be whether the plaintiff can substantiate its claim of willfulness. Given the allegations that Defendant operates from a foreign jurisdiction and uses aliases to conceal its identity Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶18, discovery into Defendant's knowledge of the patent and intent to infringe will be a critical, and potentially challenging, aspect of the case, directly impacting the availability of enhanced damages.