DCT
2:23-cv-07487
Guangzhou Haoshi Trading Co., Ltd. v. Dbest Products, Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangzhou Haoshi Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Dbest Products, Inc. (California); Richard Elden and Unknown Elden
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Intelink Law Group, PC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-07487, C.D. Cal., 09/08/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper because the Defendants reside in the district, maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, and have committed the alleged acts of tortious interference there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Haoshi Cart" product does not infringe Defendant's patent on foldable shopping carts and alleges tortious interference based on Defendant's patent infringement complaints to Amazon.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for consumer-grade, lightweight, foldable utility carts designed for transporting groceries and other goods.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute arose after Defendant Dbest filed a "Policy Warning" with Amazon on March 22, 2023, alleging patent infringement, which resulted in the takedown of Plaintiff Haoshi's product listing. The complaint alleges that after Haoshi provided a detailed non-infringement analysis, Dbest acknowledged the communication and stated it would have the listing reinstated, but subsequently failed to do so.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-10-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 Priority Date |
| 2016-01-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 Issued |
| 2023-03-22 | Defendants file patent infringement Policy Warning with Amazon |
| 2023-06-22 | Plaintiff's counsel sends non-infringement letter to Defendants |
| 2023-06-30 | Defendant Dbest responds, stating it will reinstate Plaintiff's ASIN |
| 2023-09-08 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,233,700 - “Portable Cart with Removable Shopping Bag,” issued January 12, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need for a transport cart that is lightweight and easily foldable for storage, but also robust enough to carry heavy loads (up to 160 pounds) and navigate uneven surfaces like stairs, curbs, and sand, which prior art carts struggled to do effectively (’700 Patent, col. 2:60-62; col. 3:36-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a foldable utility cart featuring a two-part handle where an "upper handle section" can be rotated and folded down onto a "lower handle section" for compact storage (’700 Patent, col. 7:33-44; Fig. 5). The design incorporates a strong "honeycomb toe plate" for supporting heavy items and large-diameter "beefy wheels" that are partially aligned with the toe plate, an innovation intended to make it easier for a user to pull a heavy load (’700 Patent, col. 4:1-11).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design seeks to provide a combination of high load capacity, all-terrain capability, and compact foldability, addressing a central trade-off in the design of consumer utility carts (’700 Patent, col. 3:36-44, 60-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for all claims of the ’700 patent, and specifically contests infringement of the three independent claims: 1, 3, and 12 (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A base section with an elevated horizontal section.
- A "first lower handle section" formed as a U-shaped member with specific transverse openings.
- A "protective sheath" surrounding a portion of the horizontal section of the first lower handle.
- A "second upper handle section" also formed as a U-shaped member.
- An upper vertical leg member with a distal end that "is bent at an angle."
- The "upper handle section is rotatably connected to the lower handle section" allowing it to be folded so it is "adjacent and above the lower handle section."
- A toe plate that is rotatably retained to the base member.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Haoshi Cart," a foldable shopping cart sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶9, ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Haoshi Cart as a folding utility cart that competes with the Defendant's products on Amazon (Compl. ¶16-17). The central feature relevant to the dispute is its handle design. The complaint alleges the Haoshi Cart has a "single, fixed handle" that is not composed of separate, rotatable sections (Compl. ¶49-50). Instead, the cart collapses for storage by folding the main frame structure at pivot points, which maintains the handle's single-piece configuration (Compl. ¶41-42). A side-by-side image provided in the complaint contrasts the patented invention's two-part folding handle with the accused product's single-piece handle. (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 6 of the '700 Patent vs. Haoshi's Shopping Cart).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint for declaratory judgment argues that the Haoshi Cart is missing multiple limitations required by every independent claim of the ’700 Patent.
’700 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a "first lower handle section" ... and ... a "second upper handle section" | The complaint alleges the Haoshi Cart has a single, fixed handle and does not contain two distinct "sections." | ¶49, ¶50 | col. 10:55-60 |
| the upper handle section is rotatably connected to the lower handle section | Plaintiff asserts that because the Haoshi Cart has a single-piece handle, no part of it can be rotated relative to another part in the manner claimed. | ¶45, ¶47 | col. 11:48-55 |
| a protective sheath surrounding a portion of the horizontal section [of the first lower handle] | The complaint argues that the absence of a "first lower handle section" makes it impossible for the accused cart to have the claimed sheath. It further alleges no such secondary layer exists on any structure. | ¶52, ¶53 | col. 11:1-4 |
| a section of the upper vertical left leg member adjacent its distal end is bent at an angle | Plaintiff alleges that the upright portions of the Haoshi Cart's handle terminate at the bottom of the cart without any "bent" or deformed configuration as required. A visual comparison highlights this alleged structural difference. (Compl. p. 10, Fig. 1 of the '700 Patent vs. Haoshi's Shopping Cart). | ¶55, ¶57 | col. 11:20-24 |
| the gripping member of the upper handle section rests against an interior wall of the toe plate section [when folded] | The complaint alleges that when the Haoshi Cart is folded, its handle grip remains above the rest of the cart and does not rest against the toe plate, claiming this is a "physical impossibility." This point is supported by a visual showing the cart in its collapsed configuration. (Compl. p. 12, Fig. 7 of the '700 Patent vs. Haoshi's Shopping Cart). | ¶58, ¶60 | col. 11:62-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The primary dispute appears to be a direct structural comparison. A key question for the court will be whether the Haoshi Cart's single-piece, collapsible handle frame can be interpreted to meet the claim limitations requiring two distinct handle sections ("first lower" and "second upper") that are "rotatably connected." The complaint frames this as a dispositive difference.
- Factual Questions: The analysis will likely involve a factual determination of whether the accused cart contains any structures that could be construed as the claimed "protective sheath," the "bent" leg members, or the "gripping member" that rests on the toe plate when folded. The complaint's position is that these elements are entirely absent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "first lower handle section" and "second upper handle section"
Context and Importance: These terms are foundational to the patent's folding mechanism and are at the center of the non-infringement argument. The plaintiff's case rests on the argument that its cart has a single handle, not two distinct "sections." The construction of whether these terms require two separate, mechanically joined components will be critical.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might contend that the terms should be interpreted functionally to cover any handle design that folds to reduce its height, though the specific claim language presents a high barrier to such an argument. The patent does not appear to offer significant support for a definition beyond two distinct components.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes and depicts two separate U-shaped members, identified as the "first lower handle section 30" and "second upper handle section 50" (’700 Patent, col. 7:12-13, 30-31). The claims further require these sections to be "rotatably connected" by affixation members or pins (150, 160), which strongly suggests two distinct, articulated parts (’700 Patent, col. 7:33-40; Fig. 5).
The Term: "protective sheath"
Context and Importance: This limitation appears in independent claims 1 and 3. Its alleged absence provides another basis for the plaintiff's non-infringement claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is tied to the existence of the "first lower handle section."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the sheath (48) as surrounding the horizontal section of the lower handle and serving "as a handle to enable a person to grasp the first lower handle section" (’700 Patent, col. 7:24-27). A patentee might argue this functionally covers any grip-like feature on a lower part of the frame.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the sheath to surround a portion of the "first lower handle section." The complaint argues that if the "first lower handle section" does not exist, this limitation cannot be met (Compl. ¶53). The figures depict the sheath as a distinct component (48) separate from the underlying metal frame (’700 Patent, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for all forms of infringement, including indirect, but the factual allegations focus entirely on the lack of direct infringement based on the product's structure (Compl. ¶64).
- Willful Infringement: This complaint does not allege willful infringement against the plaintiff. Rather, it alleges that the Defendants' assertion of the patent was made in "bad faith" and was "baseless" (Compl. ¶19, ¶26). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had "full knowledge of their error" after receiving a detailed non-infringement letter and that their conduct was "intentional, malicious and fraudulent," forming the basis for a request for attorneys' fees and the separate tortious interference claim (Compl. ¶29, ¶65, ¶67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused Haoshi Cart's single-piece, collapsible handle frame satisfy the claim limitations requiring a "first lower handle section" and a "second upper handle section" that are "rotatably connected," or is this a fundamental structural mismatch that precludes infringement?
- A second key question will be one of factual presence: can the patentee demonstrate, contrary to the complaint's allegations, that the Haoshi Cart possesses other specific, required structures, such as a "protective sheath," leg members that are "bent at an angle" at their distal ends, or a handle grip that rests on the toe plate in a folded state?
- Related to the non-patent count, a central question for the tortious interference claim will be one of improper motive: does the evidence, particularly the pre-suit communications, support the allegation that the patentee's complaint to Amazon was made with knowledge of non-infringement or in reckless disregard of the facts, thereby constituting bad faith?