DCT
2:19-cv-05326
Advantek Marketing Inc v. Shanghai Walk Long Tools Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Advantek Marketing, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., Ltd. (China); Neocraft Tools Co., Ltd. (China); Orion Factory Direct (Entity of unknown form with U.S. and China business addresses)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ferguson Case Orr Paterson LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05326, C.D. Cal., 06/18/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, conducting business there, and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that connectors used in Defendants’ "Pet Companion Outdoor Pet Kennel" infringe a patent related to connectors for assembling modular structures.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical connectors designed to join panels for structures like pet kennels or gazebos, aiming to provide an assembly method that is easy, secure, and flexible.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants received actual notice of the patent and their alleged infringement via correspondence on May 23, 2019, approximately one month before the complaint was filed. The asserted patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer over a parent patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-08-05 | '401 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-02-27 | '401 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-05-23 | Alleged Pre-Suit Notice to Defendants |
| 2019-06-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,903,401 - “Connector,” issued February 27, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a better way to connect modular panels for structures like kennels or gazebos, noting that existing methods using screws, bolts, and plates can be "difficult to install, provide limited flexibility, and [have] other disadvantages" (’401 Patent, col. 1:26-28). The goal was a connector that is "easy to use, secure, and flexible" (’401 Patent, col. 1:31-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a unitary connector with a base from which at least two receptacles extend to receive the tubular rods of adjacent panels (’401 Patent, col. 2:36-39). The key feature is the inclusion of external walls that also extend from the base; these walls are positioned "outside the receptacles such that the panels are secured to a specific angular orientation with respect to each other" (’401 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-45). This configuration uses the fixed walls to lock the panels at a predetermined angle, simplifying assembly and ensuring structural integrity without separate tools or fasteners (’401 Patent, col. 2:62-64).
- Technical Importance: This design offers a method for tool-free assembly of modular structures at fixed, stable angles, addressing shortcomings of prior connectors that were either less secure or more complex to use (’401 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Claim 1 Elements:
- a base;
- a first receptacle extending from said base, said first receptacle comprising a first open end and a first closed end, wherein said first receptacle is in a fixed position;
- a second receptacle extending from said base, said second receptacle comprising a second open end and a second closed end, wherein said second receptacle is in a fixed position;
- a first wall adjacent to both said first and second receptacles, said first wall extending from said base in a same direction as said first receptacle and positioned between said first receptacle and a first edge of said base; and
- a second wall adjacent to both said first and second receptacles, said second wall extending from said base in a same direction as said first wall and positioned between said second receptacle and a second edge of said base.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Pet Companion Outdoor Pet Kennel" and, more specifically, the connectors used to assemble it (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentality is a connector used to join the structural elements of a modular pet kennel (Compl. ¶17, p. 5). The complaint alleges that Defendants market and sell the kennel containing these connectors through a commercial website (Compl. ¶20). The complaint further alleges that the infringement is part of a strategy to "deteriorate Advantek's market share and take Advantek's customers" (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint provides a detailed claim chart with annotated photographs to support its infringement allegations for Claim 1. An annotated image identifies the accused connector's base (a) (Compl. ¶17, p. 5). A second annotated image shows the accused connector's first receptacle (b), its open end (b1), and its closed end (b2) (Compl. ¶17, p. 6). Another image illustrates what the complaint alleges is the first wall (d) adjacent to the receptacles and positioned relative to a first edge of the base (a1) (Compl. ¶17, p. 8).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A connector for connecting a structure, comprising: | The Accused Product comprises connectors that connect other structural elements of the Accused product together. | ¶17 | col. 1:35-39 |
| a base; | The accused connector is alleged to comprise a base, identified as element (a) in an annotated photograph. | ¶17 | col. 2:40-41 |
| a first receptacle extending from said base...in a fixed position; | The accused connector is alleged to have a first receptacle (b) with an open end (b1) and a closed end (b2). | ¶17 | col. 2:40-42 |
| a second receptacle extending from said base...in a fixed position; | The accused connector is alleged to have a second receptacle (c) with an open end (c1) and a closed end (c2). | ¶17 | col. 2:40-42 |
| a first wall adjacent to both said first and second receptacles...positioned between said first receptacle and a first edge of said base; | The accused connector is alleged to have a first wall (d) extending from the base (a) and positioned between the first receptacle (b) and a first edge of the base (a1). | ¶17 | col. 2:43-47 |
| a second wall adjacent to both said first and second receptacles...positioned between said second receptacle and a second edge of said base. | The accused connector is alleged to have a second wall (e) extending from the base (a) and positioned between the second receptacle (c) and a second edge of the base (a2). | ¶17 | col. 2:43-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The claim requires a specific spatial relationship where a wall is "positioned between" a receptacle and an "edge of said base." The interpretation of what constitutes an "edge" on the potentially complex geometry of the accused connector's base raises a question for claim construction. Plaintiff has also prospectively raised the issue of whether the preamble "A connector for connecting a structure" is a claim limitation, a common point of dispute (Compl. ¶17, fn. 1).
- Technical Questions: The claim requires that each wall be "adjacent to both said first and second receptacles." A central question will be what degree of proximity or contact is necessary to satisfy the term "adjacent," and whether the accused connector's walls meet that standard for both receptacles simultaneously.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "adjacent to both said first and second receptacles"
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the position of the critical orienting walls relative to the receptacles. Infringement hinges on whether the accused connector's walls satisfy this dual-adjacency requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if a wall is found to be adjacent to only one receptacle, or not "adjacent" in the manner required by the claim, the infringement argument could fail.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "adjacent" suggests "next to" or "near," which may not require direct physical contact or a specific functional interface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that the walls function to secure panels "to a specific angular orientation" (’401 Patent, Abstract). A party could argue that "adjacent" must be construed functionally, requiring the walls to be positioned so as to physically constrain panels inserted into both receptacles, as depicted in figures like FIG. 1A.
The Term: "edge of said base"
- Context and Importance: This term provides a reference point for the position of the claimed walls. The location and definition of the "edge" are critical for determining if the "positioned between" limitation is met. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will be essential to mapping the claim elements onto the physical geometry of the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "edge," which could support a plain and ordinary meaning applicable to any boundary of the base, regardless of its shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the "edge" must be interpreted in light of the embodiments shown in the figures, which depict a base with distinct, somewhat linear outer boundaries. This could support a narrower construction that might not read on a connector with a more amorphous or rounded base.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by their customers and distributors, asserting this is done "actively, knowingly, and intentionally" (Compl. ¶21). The pleading does not point to specific evidence, such as user manuals, but alleges the inducement is motivated by a desire to take Plaintiff's market share (Compl. ¶21).
Willful Infringement
- The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendants had "actual notice of the '401 Patent and the infringement" no later than May 23, 2019, due to correspondence between counsel, and that they continued their allegedly infringing conduct thereafter (Compl. ¶23-24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction, specifically the court's interpretation of the spatial terms "adjacent to both," "between," and "edge of said base." The outcome of the infringement analysis will largely depend on whether the specific geometry of the accused connector falls within the scope of these terms as construed by the court.
- A threshold legal question will be whether the preamble is limiting. Plaintiff has signaled its position that the preamble is merely introductory (Compl. ¶17, fn. 1). A finding that the preamble limits the claim's scope could introduce additional elements for Plaintiff to prove.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence. Assuming claim construction favors the Plaintiff, the case will turn on factual evidence, likely from experts, demonstrating whether the accused connector’s walls are physically "positioned between" the receptacles and the base "edges" in the precise manner required by Claim 1.