Joyin US Corp v. Sunny Days Entertainment LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Joyin US Corp (Delaware/Arizona)
  • Defendant: Sunny Days Entertainment, LLC (South Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00892, D. Ariz., 04/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Arizona and that the court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant due to its business conduct in the state and its patent enforcement activities directed at Plaintiff, an Arizona-based corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Joyin Bubble Blowers" do not infringe Defendant’s patent and that the patent-in-suit is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns automated, motorized toy bubble blowing machines designed to produce a continuous stream of bubbles.
• Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was filed in response to Defendant initiating an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding alleging that Plaintiff's products infringe the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff opted not to participate in the APEX process and instead filed this action, asserting that Defendant’s patent is invalid due to an on-sale bar created by Plaintiff's own prior product sales.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,772,004 - "Vertical Bubble Blower"

• Issued: October 3, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional bubble toys suffer from various drawbacks. Manual wands are messy and can tire the user; bubble guns can leak; and other mechanically activated toys, like push-mower types, require significant physical effort and fail to produce a "relatively continuous stream of bubbles." (’004 Patent, col. 1:36-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated, stationary bubble machine that uses a single motor to create a continuous vertical bubble effect. The motor simultaneously drives a fan to blow air upward and a "liquid fountain unit" to propel bubble solution upward. A rotating disc carrying multiple bubble wands continuously cycles through two positions: first, passing through the upward-blown solution to get coated, and second, passing through the upward stream of air to form bubbles that rise out of the top of the device. (’004 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This integrated design aims to provide a hands-free, continuous, and less messy bubble-making experience compared to prior hand-held or manually operated toys. (’004 Patent, col. 2:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint contests independent claims 1 and 11. (Compl. ¶34).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A housing with an open top side.
  • A motor inside the housing.
  • A "liquid fountain unit" inside the housing, which includes a "first basin" for solution and a "first bubbler" to eject solution in an "upward direction."
  • A rotatable disc with openings, positioned above the liquid fountain unit, to receive the upwardly ejected solution.
  • A fan below the disc, positioned to blow an "upward stream of air" through the disc's openings.
  • The disc is configured to maintain a "constant height" as it rotates.
• The complaint notes that if the independent claims are not infringed, the dependent claims are not infringed either. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Joyin Bubble Blowers," which are categorized into two groups: gun-style "Blasters" and "Lawnmowers." (Compl. ¶19). The complaint includes a representative image of the accused "Blasters." (Compl. p. 6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products, particularly the Blasters, operate in a fundamentally different manner from the patented invention. They are described as comprising a "removable bubble bottle that is attached outside the housing." (Compl. ¶35). The complaint further alleges that the Blasters' fan and bubbler are configured to eject air and liquid bubble solution in a horizontal direction, not an upward one. (Compl. ¶¶36, 11:4-6). Plaintiff asserts its products are sold on e-commerce storefronts like Amazon, which constitutes its "primary sales channel into the United States." (Compl. ¶¶18, 21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Plaintiff's primary arguments for why its products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.

’004 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint includes an annotated image of the "Blasters" to support its technical arguments, explicitly labeling the "Bubble bottle on exterior of the housing" and showing that the "Fan and bubbler [are] blowing bubbles horizontally." (Compl. p. 10).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether the claim term "liquid fountain unit disposed in the housing" can be interpreted to read on a removable bottle attached to the exterior of the product's housing.
  • Technical Questions: A central question is whether the repeated claim requirement for an "upward direction" or "upward stream" for both the bubble solution and the air can read on the accused products' alleged "horizontal" operation. The complaint presents this as a fundamental technical mismatch.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "upward direction" / "upward stream"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of "upward" is critical, as Plaintiff's core non-infringement theory rests on its products operating "horizontally." (Compl. ¶¶36, 11:1-6). The outcome may depend on whether "upward" is construed to mean strictly vertical or if it can encompass any vector with some vertical component.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term itself does not inherently limit the direction to a specific angle, as long as the trajectory is not downward or perfectly horizontal.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Vertical Bubble Blower." The specification consistently describes an "upward stream of air" and solution being blown in a "generally upward direction." ('004 Patent, col. 4:13, 4:42). The patent's Figure 2, illustrating the device's operation, depicts arrows (40, 42) pointing vertically, which could support a narrower construction limited to a substantially vertical orientation.

• The Term: "liquid fountain unit disposed in the housing"

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff argues its external bottle does not meet this limitation. (Compl. ¶35). The definition of this integrated system is therefore central to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term functionally describes any system that supplies liquid to the wands and that "disposed in the housing" does not preclude components, like a reservoir, from being externally accessible or attached.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "liquid fountain unit 20" as an assembly of components, including a "liquid basin 48," that are "housed inside of the main body 10." ('004 Patent, col. 4:59-60, Fig. 3). This description of an internal, integrated system may support a narrower construction that excludes externally attached bottles.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action focused on Plaintiff's direct non-infringement.
• Invalidity Allegations: The complaint alleges that claims of the ’004 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102, asserting that the "Joyin Bubble Blowers themselves" constitute prior art. (Compl. ¶41). It specifically claims that products identified by ASINs B07VFCQ3BT and B086SP5KMT were offered for sale as early as July 2019 and April 2020, respectively, more than one year before the patent's June 4, 2021 priority date, creating a potential on-sale bar to patentability. (Compl. ¶¶41-43).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical orientation and function: Can the '004 patent's claims, which consistently require an "upward" projection of both air and bubble solution from within a housing, be construed to cover the accused gun-style toys that allegedly use an external bottle and project air and solution "horizontally"?
• A key evidentiary question will be the on-sale bar defense: Can Plaintiff provide clear and convincing evidence that its products, offered for sale more than a year before the patent's priority date, embody all the limitations of the asserted claims, thereby rendering those claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102?