Tan Grow Inc v. Link Future Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tan Grow Inc. (Illinois)
  • Defendant: Link Future, Inc., et al., including Vivohome Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: RIMON, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08257, C.D. Cal., 09/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants committed acts of infringement in the district, including selling, offering to sell, and importing accused products, and derive substantial revenue from such activities in California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ foldable pet bathtubs infringe two utility patents and two design patents related to foldable liquid containers with supporting frames.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, collapsible containers, such as pet bathtubs, designed to be easily set up, broken down, and stored, addressing the space and convenience limitations of traditional rigid or inflatable tubs.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-06-06	U.S. Patent 10,882,662 Priority Date
2018-06-06	U.S. Patent 10,543,957 Priority Date
2018-06-15	U.S. Patent D940,284 Priority Date
2019-04-23	U.S. Patent D940,285 Priority Date
2020-01-28	U.S. Patent 10,543,957 Issues
2021-01-05	U.S. Patent 10,882,662 Issues
2022-01-04	U.S. Patent D940,284 Issues
2022-01-04	U.S. Patent D940,285 Issues
2023-09-21	Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,882,662 - "Foldable Liquid Container with Supporting Frame," issued January 5, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional large containers like pet tubs as facing two primary issues: rigid containers are bulky and difficult to store, while inflatable containers are time-consuming to set up, susceptible to leaks, and typically sit on the ground, forcing a user to bend or squat, which is ergonomically inconvenient and less sanitary (’662 Patent, col. 1:40 - col. 2:25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a liquid container with a supporting frame that can be transitioned from an unfolded, operational state to a compact, folded state through a "single pulling operation." A key component is a switch device that both facilitates this single-action collapse and securely locks the frame in its elevated, unfolded position during use (’662 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-40).
• Technical Importance: This approach combines portability and convenient storage with the stability and elevated height of a rigid frame, aiming to offer a superior user experience compared to prior art solutions (’662 Patent, col. 2:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15, 21).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A foldable supporting frame operable between an unfolded and a folded mode.
  • A switch device on the frame to operate it between modes via a "single pulling operation."
  • A container body arranged on the frame that folds and unfolds with the frame.
  • The switch device supports the frame in the unfolded mode.
  • The switch device can be operated to release the support to allow folding.

U.S. Patent No. 10,543,957 - "Foldable Liquid Container with Supporting Frame," issued January 28, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’662 Patent, this patent addresses the inconvenience of storing large rigid containers and the drawbacks of inflatable alternatives, such as setup time and the need for a user to bend down during use (’957 Patent, col. 1:41 - col. 2:28).
• The Patented Solution: This patent discloses a similar foldable container but claims a more specific mechanical arrangement. The foldable frame includes two folding arms, a "switching rod," and a "switch device" comprising a main body, a "slider," and a "resilient member." The interaction between the switching rod, slider, and resilient member provides a distinct locking mechanism that secures the frame when unfolded and allows for a controlled collapse when operated (’957 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:6-23).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific and robust mechanical linkage for locking and folding, detailing the components that ensure stability in the open state and enable the transition to the closed state (’957 Patent, col. 2:51-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and its dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16, 26).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A container body and a foldable supporting frame with two folding arms and supporting legs.
  • A "switching rod" connecting two end portions of one folding arm.
  • A "switch device" comprising a main body with a "slider chamber," a "slider" slidably engaged within it, and a "resilient member."
  • A specific operation where folding the arms moves the switching rod to compress the resilient member, and in the unfolded state, the resilient member provides a force to retain the slider and support the switching rod.

Multi-Patent Capsule

U.S. Patent No. D940,284 - "Frame for Basin," issued January 4, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: This design patent claims the ornamental design for the foldable frame of a basin. The protected design consists of the specific visual appearance of the frame's components, including the shape of the legs, the upper ring-like structure, and the central pivot/locking mechanism, as depicted in the patent figures ('284 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
• Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶31).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of the accused "Pet Bath" frame is substantially the same as the claimed design, sufficient to deceive an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22).

U.S. Patent No. D940,285 - "Basin," issued January 4, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a complete foldable basin assembly, which includes both the frame and the flexible container. The claimed design's aesthetic is a result of the combination of the frame's structure with the specific visual features of the basin, such as its shape, rim, and attached pockets ('285 Patent, Figs. 1-6).
• Asserted Claims: The patent contains a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶36).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the complete accused "Pet Bath" product is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are identified as "Pet Bath" tubs sold by Defendants through "Vivohome and DEStar stores on Amazon" (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 14). One specific product is identified by Amazon ASIN No. B098WT1BXB (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused product is a foldable pet bathtub designed for portability and elevated use. A visual from the complaint shows the accused "Pet Bath" in its unfolded, operational state with a pet inside (Compl. p. 3, image). The complaint alleges these products are sold, offered for sale, and/or imported into the United States, including within the Central District of California (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided. The infringement theory is summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

'662 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Pet Bath" meets all limitations of at least claim 1 of the ’662 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The infringement theory posits that the accused product incorporates a "foldable supporting frame," a "container body" that folds with the frame, and a "switch device" that enables operation between folded and unfolded modes through a "single pulling operation," thereby mapping directly onto the elements of claim 1 (Compl. ¶13). The complaint further alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-3 (Compl. ¶15).

'957 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Pet Bath" infringes at least claim 1 of the ’957 Patent and its dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). The narrative theory is that the accused product's structure includes the specific components recited in the claim: a foldable frame with two "folding arms" and "supporting legs," a "switching rod," and a "switch device" that itself contains a "slider chamber," a "slider," and a "resilient member" that operate in the claimed manner (Compl. ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For the ’662 patent, a potential dispute may arise over the term "single pulling operation." The court may need to determine if this requires a specific user action on a particular component, or if it more broadly covers any single, continuous motion that initiates the folding sequence. For the ’957 patent, the question is whether the more detailed mechanical elements, such as the "slider" and "resilient member," read on the components of the accused device's locking mechanism.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused product's folding and locking mechanism operates in the specific manner claimed. For the ’957 Patent, this involves determining if components in the accused device can be identified that perform the distinct functions of the claimed "slider" (moving within a chamber) and "resilient member" (providing an outward pushing force to retain the slider).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "single pulling operation" (’662 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted novelty of the ’662 Patent, distinguishing it from prior art that may require more complex or multi-step actions to collapse. Its construction will likely determine whether the operation of the accused product falls within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly highlights the advantage of easy storage achieved via a "single pulling operation," suggesting the term's focus is on the simplicity of the user's action rather than the underlying mechanical complexity (’662 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description connects the operation to a specific component, stating that "only a single pulling operation step of pulling the handle 321... is required" to operate the switch device and fold the frame (’662 Patent, col. 11:29-33). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the claim to an operation initiated by pulling that specific handle.

Term: "resilient member" (’957 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The "resilient member" is a critical component of the claimed switch device in the ’957 patent. Infringement will depend on whether a corresponding structure with the claimed function exists in the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this term because its alleged function—providing a force that "pushes against said slider for retaining an end portion"—is highly specific.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: "Resilient member" is a generic term, and a plaintiff could argue it encompasses any component that provides a biasing or restoring force, such as any type of spring or elastic material.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the member to perform a specific function: providing a "resilient force that pushes against said slider" to keep it protruded in the unfolded state (’957 Patent, col. 16:19-23). The figures depict this element as a coil spring (23), which a defendant might argue limits the term to that specific embodiment or structures that function identically (’957 Patent, Fig. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as references to user manuals or the sale of non-staple components. The prayer for relief, however, seeks an injunction against inducing or contributing to infringement of all four patents-in-suit (Compl. pp. 10-11).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "willful, wanton, and deliberate" and seeks enhanced damages (Compl., p. 11, ¶17). The complaint does not specify the factual basis for this allegation, such as whether it is based on pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

• A core issue for the utility patents will be one of technical and functional scope: does the accused product's folding mechanism operate via the "single pulling operation" as claimed in the '662 patent, and does it contain the specific "slider" and "resilient member" assembly with the functions recited in the '957 patent? The resolution will depend on whether the accused device is found to be a direct copy or a functionally distinct alternative design.
• For the design patents, the central question will be the application of the ordinary observer test: considering the prior art, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "Pet Bath" and its frame "substantially the same" as the designs claimed in the '284 and '285 patents? The outcome will hinge on a visual and comparative analysis of whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived by the similarity.