DCT

2:18-cv-09332

Humancentric Ventures LLC v. Xiao Jing He

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-09332, C.D. Cal., 10/31/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants conduct business in the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mount adapter brackets infringe the ornamental designs claimed in three U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns VESA mount adapter brackets, which are hardware accessories that allow computer monitors with non-standard attachment points to be connected to standardized mounting arms.
  • Key Procedural History: Post-dating the complaint's filing, the single claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D823,093 was cancelled as a result of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding (PGR2019-00030) initiated on January 15, 2019, with a certificate of cancellation issued on May 14, 2021. The cancellation of this claim may render infringement allegations for this patent moot.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-01-01 Defendant Sattler Tech Corp. allegedly established
2017-01-24 Priority Date for D829,531 Patent
2017-02-17 Priority Date for D823,093 Patent
2017-02-17 Priority Date for D823,094 Patent
2018-07-17 U.S. Patent No. D823,093 Issued
2018-07-17 U.S. Patent No. D823,094 Issued
2018-10-02 U.S. Patent No. D829,531 Issued
2018-10-31 Complaint Filed
2019-01-15 Post-Grant Review (PGR2019-00030) filed for D823,093 Patent
2021-05-14 Certificate of Cancellation Issued for D823,093 Patent

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D823,093, “VESA MOUNT ADAPTER BRACKET,” Issued July 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a novel aesthetic design for a VESA mount adapter bracket (D’093 Patent, Title; Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design of the bracket as depicted in the figures. The design's appearance is characterized by a generally rectangular backplate with rounded corners, a specific arrangement of apertures shown in solid lines, and a forward-projecting structure featuring two distinct, hook-like lower tabs (D’093 Patent, Figs. 1, 6). The broken lines in the figures denote portions of the bracket that do not form part of the claimed design (D’093 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: Brackets of this type provide a mechanical interface to solve the common problem of attaching monitors with proprietary or non-standard mounts to industry-standard VESA mounting arms (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a VESA mount adapter bracket, as shown and described" (D’093 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings.

U.S. Design Patent No. D823,094, “VESA MOUNT ADAPTER BRACKET,” Issued July 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a VESA mount adapter bracket, distinct from the ’093 Patent (D’094 Patent, Title; Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The claimed design features a backplate with a curved, teardrop-like lower profile and a unique pattern of apertures. It includes a forward-projecting structure comprised of a single lower bracket supported by triangular side gussets, creating a different overall aesthetic impression from the ’093 Patent design (D’094 Patent, Figs. 1, 2). The features shown in broken lines are disclaimed and do not form part of the protected design (D’094 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: Similar to the ’093 Patent, this bracket design serves as an adapter, enabling compatibility between non-standard monitors and VESA-compliant mounting hardware (Compl. ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a vesa mount adapter bracket, as shown and described" (D’094 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Design Patent No. D829,531, “MOUNT ADAPTER BRACKET,” Issued October 2, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a specific ornamental design for a mount adapter bracket. The design is characterized by a prominent, box-like forward-projecting element that engages the monitor, and a flat backplate with a distinct pattern of mounting holes as shown in the figures (D’531 Patent, Figs. 1, 6, 7).
  • Asserted Claims: The patent’s single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described is asserted (D’531 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶¶58-62).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall design of Defendant Wali’s model VAC002 is "the same or so substantially the same as the design of the '531 Patent as to be likely to deceive the ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶¶17, 61).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are mount adapter brackets sold by Defendant Wali, specifically models VHP001, VHP002, and VAC002 (Compl. ¶¶15-17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are "mount adapter brackets" sold by Defendant Wali through its own and other internet websites (Compl. ¶14). Defendant Sattler Tech Corp. is alleged to be the "biggest authorized dealer of WALI® products in America" and to import, distribute, and coordinate with Wali to sell the Accused Products in the United States (Compl. ¶¶25, 26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts. It advances a narrative infringement theory, asserting that the accused products are "the same or so substantially the same" as the patented designs that they would deceive an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶¶30, 39, 61). The complaint references a "comparison table in Exhibit 4" that allegedly shows the accused product designs are the same or substantially the same as the Patented Designs, but this exhibit was not provided (Compl. ¶18).

'093 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the design of Defendant Wali's model VHP001 is "the same or so substantially the same as the design of the '093 Patent as to be likely to deceive the ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶30).

'094 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the design of Defendant Wali's model VHP002 is "the same or so substantially the same as the design of the '094 Patent as to be likely to deceive the ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶39). In support of its allegations related to the VHP002 product, the complaint claims that one of the photos used by Wali in its amazon.com listing was actually a photo of the Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Viability Question: A primary issue for the claim against the ’093 Patent is its viability following the post-filing cancellation of its single claim in a PGR proceeding.
  • Factual Question: For the ’094 and ’531 Patents, the central dispute will be a factual one: whether an ordinary observer, viewing the accused product designs as a whole, would find them substantially the same as the claimed designs. This analysis would typically involve a side-by-side comparison, considering the overall visual impression created by each design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The primary dispute generally centers on the factual question of infringement under the "ordinary observer" test rather than the interpretation of specific terms. The scope of the claimed article, a "VESA mount adapter bracket," does not appear to be in dispute, as the accused products are alleged to be the same type of article (Compl. ¶¶14-17).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes passing reference to indirect infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶67(b)), but the specific counts for relief are grounded in direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) through acts of making, using, selling, and importing (Compl. ¶¶31, 40, 62). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and continues to be willful, asserting it occurred "despite their knowledge" of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶32, 41, 63). The complaint does not, however, allege a factual basis for this knowledge, such as a pre-suit notification letter or prior litigation.

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

  1. Mootness: A threshold question for the court will be the procedural impact of the post-complaint cancellation of the '093 Patent's claim. The court will need to determine if this development renders the infringement claim for that patent moot.
  2. Visual Similarity: For the remaining ’094 and ’531 Patents, the case will turn on a core question of holistic design comparison: would an ordinary observer, in light of the prior art, be deceived into believing that the accused VHP002 and VAC002 products are the same as the patented designs?
  3. State of Mind: A key evidentiary question for damages will be willfulness: can the plaintiff produce evidence that the defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents, or will the willfulness claim be limited to conduct occurring after the filing of the complaint?