DCT

2:12-cv-04569

Wing Pow Intl Corp v. Shenzhen Lingjuli Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:12-cv-04569, C.D. Cal., 05/24/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that Defendants sent exemplars of the accused devices into the Central District of California with the intent and expectation that they would be offered for sale and sold within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" personal massagers infringe a patent related to a mechanized dildo featuring a novel reciprocating girth-expansion mechanism.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns sexual stimulation devices, introducing a specific mechanical action for girth expansion as an alternative or supplement to conventional vibration-only mechanisms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. The patent was subject to a Certificate of Correction, issued March 6, 2012, which corrected typographical errors and re-lettered subsections within claim 1.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717 Priority Date
2010-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717 Issue Date
2012-05-24 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717 - "Mechanized Dildo"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717, "Mechanized Dildo," issued November 9, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need in the field of sexual stimulation devices for an "improved form of stimulation and enhanced versatility" beyond what was available in the prior art, which was largely focused on vibration (U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717, col. 1:21-25). The invention specifically contemplates providing a "reciprocatingly expanding girth" (U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717, col. 1:30-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanism housed within an elastic phallic sleeve that creates a "throbbing" or reciprocating expansion of the sleeve's girth. This is achieved through a motor-driven rotating shaft fitted with "drive cams." As the shaft rotates, these drive cams engage corresponding "passive cams," pushing them radially outward. This outward motion locally expands the elastic sleeve. Continued rotation allows the passive cams to retract, creating a cyclical expansion and contraction (U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717, Abstract; col. 3:15-29).
  • Technical Importance: The technology introduced a new mode of mechanical action—cyclical girth expansion—to a product category that had historically relied primarily on vibratory effects for stimulation (U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717, col. 1:18-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, and 14.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a mechanized dildo comprising:
    • A cam mechanism with a motor-driven shaft, axially spaced drive cams, passive cams, and a guide structure.
    • An elastic phallic sleeve enclosing the passive cams.
    • A support structure.
    • A motorized controller.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, and 12-14 (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are devices sold by Defendant ODECO, Ltd. under the designations "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific details on the internal mechanism, technical operation, or market position of the accused "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products beyond identifying them by name (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe the ’717 Patent, but it does not provide a claim chart or specific factual allegations that map the features of the accused products to the elements of the asserted claims. The infringement theory must be inferred from the assertion of infringement of specific claims against the named products.

’717 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a cam mechanism comprising: (i) a motor-driven shaft; The complaint alleges the "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products contain this element but provides no specific operational details. ¶10 col. 2:32-33
(ii) an axially spaced plurality of drive cams on and rotationally coupled to the shaft; The complaint alleges the "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products contain this element but provides no specific operational details. ¶10 col. 2:33-35
(iii) a plurality of passive cams circumferentially spaced about each of the drive cams... wherein the passive cams of each set operate in unison in response to rotation of the shaft; The complaint alleges the "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products contain this element but provides no specific operational details. ¶10 col. 2:36-42
(iv) a guide structure for guiding the passive cams generally radially relative to the drive cams; The complaint alleges the "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products contain this element but provides no specific operational details. ¶10 col. 2:42-44
a phallic sleeve comprising an elastic material; The complaint alleges the "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products contain this element but provides no specific operational details. ¶10 col. 2:34-36
a support structure supporting the sleeve in generally coaxial relation to the shaft, the sleeve enclosing the passive cams in proximal relation to the sleeve; The complaint alleges the "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products contain this element but provides no specific operational details. ¶10 col. 2:36-39
a motorized controller for operating the drive shaft... The complaint alleges the "Rabbit Vibrator" and "Touch Rabbit Vibrator" products contain this element but provides no specific operational details. ¶10 col. 2:47-49
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: Given the lack of detail in the complaint, the central question for discovery will be evidentiary: Do the accused "Rabbit Vibrator" products in fact contain an internal mechanism comprising a "motor-driven shaft," "drive cams," and "passive cams" that function as recited in claim 1 to produce a reciprocating girth expansion? Or do they operate on a different principle, such as simple vibration or another form of mechanical movement?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to identify specific claim terms that are likely to be in dispute. However, based on the technology, the following term may become a focus of claim construction.

  • The Term: "passive cams"
  • Context and Importance: The interaction between the rotating "drive cams" and the radially-displaced "passive cams" is the core of the patented invention. The definition of "passive cams" will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its product either lacks this specific component, uses a unitary structure that is not properly characterized as separate drive and passive cams, or that its components do not function in the "passive" manner described.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term, which may support an interpretation covering any component that is acted upon by a rotating driver to produce radial motion, regardless of its specific shape or material (U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717, col. 3:3-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the "passive cams" (27) as structurally distinct elements that are separate from the "drive cams" (24) and are held in place by a "guide structure" (28, 30, 32). An argument could be made that the term is limited to this disclosed arrangement (U.S. Patent No. 7,828,717, Fig. 4; col. 3:3-14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant ODECO, Ltd. provided its customers with "user manuals, owner guides and instruction sheets" which allegedly instruct consumers on how to use the devices in an infringing manner, thereby causing direct infringement by the end-users (Compl. ¶12).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks treble damages for willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and alleges this is an "exceptional case" warranting attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶15; p.4, ¶B). The complaint does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

  • A primary issue will be evidentiary and factual: What is the actual internal mechanism of the accused "Rabbit Vibrator" products? The viability of the infringement case hinges entirely on whether discovery reveals a cam-based structure that performs the reciprocating girth expansion described and claimed in the ’717 patent.
  • A secondary issue will be one of claim construction: If the accused products are found to have some form of expansion mechanism, the case may turn on definitional scope. For example, can the term "passive cams," as described in the patent's specific embodiments, be construed to cover the components used in the accused devices, or is there a fundamental structural and operational difference?