DCT
2:24-cv-00331
Zhejiang Zhengte Co Ltd v. Lausaint Industrial Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zhejiang Zhengte Co Ltd. (China)
- Defendants: Lausaint Industrial Co Ltd. (China); Ningbo Re Mode Network Technology Co Ltd. (China); and Teak Source USA, a California corporation.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00331, C.D. Cal., 12/09/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to the foreign defendants because a defendant not resident in the U.S. may be sued in any judicial district. Venue is alleged to be proper as to the domestic defendant, Teak Source USA, because it has a regular and established place of business in the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ louvered pergola products infringe a patent related to a unique assembly method and an integrated rainwater drainage system.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns outdoor structures, specifically louvered pergolas, a popular category of outdoor leisure furniture that provides adjustable shade and weather protection.
- Key Procedural History: The currently operative complaint is a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges it first filed suit on February 14, 2024, putting Defendants on notice of the patent and allegations of infringement. Plaintiff also alleges its commercial products are marked with the patent number.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-05-28 | U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187 Priority Date |
| 2022-04-27 | Alleged first date of commerce for Accused Products by Ningbo Re Mode |
| 2023-04-11 | U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187 Issue Date |
| 2024-02-14 | Plaintiff's Original Complaint Filing Date |
| 2024-10-17 | Bill of lading indicates import of "Gazebo" by Defendants |
| 2024-10-24 | Bill of lading indicates import of "Steel Gazebo" by Defendants |
| 2024-12-09 | Second Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187 - Pergola
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187, “Pergola,” issued April 11, 2023 (the “’187 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background section does not articulate a specific problem, but the "Objects and Advantages" section details numerous perceived shortcomings in the prior art, suggesting a need for a pergola that is easier to assemble, more durable, and provides superior, integrated functionality for managing rainwater and providing shade without the aesthetic and functional drawbacks of prior designs (e.g., messy build-up of leaves and debris, visible water stains) (’187 Patent, col. 14:14-41).
- The Patented Solution: The ’187 Patent describes a multi-function pergola structure designed for simplified assembly and integrated water management. The assembly system uses "securing bars" at the end of each cross beam that slidably insert into "internal beam securing slots" in the corner posts, creating a fastener-free outer appearance (Compl. ¶15; ’187 Patent, col. 55:6-12). The patented solution also incorporates an integrated gutter system where rainwater collected by the louvered roof flows into internal gutters within the cross beams, then drains through an "internal conduit" inside the corner posts and exits at the bottom, concealing the drainage path and preventing water stains on the exterior surfaces (Compl. ¶16; ’187 Patent, col. 55:13-22). The complaint includes a figure from the patent, Figure 3S, illustrating this internal water flow path from the beam into the post (Compl. ¶16).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide a pergola that combines aesthetic benefits (a clean, fastener-free look) with functional improvements (integrated drainage) and simplified assembly for consumers (’187 Patent, col. 14:21-33; Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A pergola with four corner posts and four beams.
- Each corner post has a top, a bottom, and an internal conduit.
- Each beam has an internal gutter.
- Each end of a beam has at least one "securing bar."
- The beams are attached to the corner posts by "slidably attaching" the securing bar into an "internal beam securing slot" on the post.
- The connected beams and posts form an "internal gutter system" where the beam gutters are in fluid communication with the post conduits.
- An "offset" exists between the outer surface of the beam and the outer surface of the corner post.
- A plurality of louvers are connected across the beams.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies at least the "Lausaint 10' x 13' Louvered Pergola" as an Accused Product (Compl. ¶18). The allegations extend to any other louvered pergola made or sold by Defendants with "substantially the same construction" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "louvered pergola" that is an "obvious knock-off" of Plaintiff's patented pergola (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The complaint includes a side-by-side photograph comparing the Accused Product with the Plaintiff's product to support the allegation of high similarity in overall appearance and structure (Compl. ¶18, p. 8). The complaint further alleges that the defendants manufacture, import, and sell these pergolas through various online retailers like walmart.com and wayfair.com, as well as their own website, lausaint.com (Compl. ¶¶22-23). Bills of lading are referenced to demonstrate the importation of products identified as "Gazebo" and "Steel Gazebo" into the United States (Compl. ¶¶26-27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit, but it narratively alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’187 Patent.
’187 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pergola, comprising: four corner posts...; and four beams... | The Accused Product is alleged to be a pergola with the same general construction as Plaintiff's patented version, as shown in a side-by-side photo comparison. | ¶18 | col. 54:62-63 |
| wherein each end of each beam includes at least one securing bar... wherein each end of each beam is attached to the top of a corner post by slidably attaching the at least one securing bar of the beam into at least one internal beam securing slot of the corner post... | The complaint alleges a unique assembly system utilizing "securing bars at the ends of each cross beam, which correspond with internal beam securing slots provided on the upper end of each corner post" and that assembly occurs by "slidably inserting" the bar into the slot. | ¶15 | col. 55:6-12 |
| ...each beam having... an internal gutter... each of the corner posts, having... an internal conduit... wherein the internal gutters defined along the length of each beam and... the internal conduits running through each of the corner posts... are in fluid communications... | The complaint alleges the patented pergola includes an "internal gutter system" allowing rainwater to drain from the roof into "internal gutters provided along the length each cross beam" and thereafter into an "internal conduit provided in each corner post." The Accused Product is alleged to infringe these features. | ¶16 | col. 55:13-22 |
| ...and further wherein each corner post and each beam has an outer surface that faces outward of the pergola and is opposite the internal gutter system, and an offset between the outer surface of the beam and the outer surface of each corner post... | The complaint alleges that when assembled, the patented pergola features an "offset between the outer surface of the cross beam as compared to the outer surface of the corner posts," a feature shown in a patent figure reproduced in the complaint. | ¶15 | col. 55:23-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the allegation that the Accused Product is a "knock-off" with "substantially the same construction" (Compl. ¶¶19, 21). A primary point of contention will be a factual, element-by-element comparison. Does the accused product's assembly mechanism meet the "slidably attaching" limitation? Does it possess an "offset" between the beam and post surfaces as claimed?
- Technical Questions: The functionality of the internal drainage system will be critical. The court may need to determine if the accused product’s water management system operates in the specific manner claimed, with "fluid communication" between internal beam gutters and internal post conduits, or if it achieves a similar result through a different, non-infringing design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "offset between the outer surface of the beam and the outer surface of each corner post"
Context and Importance: This term defines a specific spatial relationship between two core structural components. The presence or absence of this precise structural feature in the Accused Product could be determinative of literal infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it requires a specific dimension, geometry, or is met by any non-flush alignment—is not explicitly defined by a numerical value in the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not quantify the "offset," which may support an argument that any perceptible, non-coplanar relationship between the outer surfaces infringes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, including Figure 2Q (referenced in Compl. ¶15), depicts a specific embodiment of this offset. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the particular type of stepped or recessed configuration shown in the patent's figures.
The Term: "internal conduit"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed water drainage system. Infringement of this element depends on whether the accused pergola's posts contain a structure that meets the definition of an "internal conduit." The dispute could turn on how "internal" is defined.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a special definition, so a party may argue for its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any channel or pipe located inside the post.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3S (referenced in Compl. ¶16) shows the conduit (128) as a fully enclosed channel within the post structure (130). A defendant could argue this figure limits the scope of "internal conduit" to a structure that is integrally formed within, or fully contained by, the walls of the corner post, as opposed to a separate piece attached inside it.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges multiple theories of indirect infringement. It alleges inducement by Defendants against each other and against end-purchasers, based on acts of "aiding, instructing, or otherwise acting with the intent to cause... infringement" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶39, 53, 68). It also alleges contributory infringement, reasoning that the pergolas are sold "unassembled and in parts," that these parts are not "staple articles... capable of substantial non-infringing use," and that each part constitutes a "material part of the claimed invention" (Compl. ¶¶58, 61, 80).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on several factual grounds. It claims Defendants had pre-suit knowledge by securing a commercial version of Plaintiff's patented pergola and "directly cop[ying]" it (Compl. ¶31). It also alleges knowledge via Plaintiff's patent marking on its products (Compl. ¶¶31, 40) and actual notice of the patent and infringement allegations from the filing of the original complaint on February 14, 2024, after which Defendants allegedly continued their infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶34, 41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Structural Equivalence and Copying: The case appears to be centered on allegations of direct copying. A core issue will therefore be one of structural identity: can Plaintiff prove that the Accused Product contains every element of the asserted claims, including potentially subtle features like the "offset" between the beam and corner post? The side-by-side photos presented in the complaint suggest a high degree of similarity, which may weigh on this factual determination.
Chain of Liability: The complaint alleges a complex commercial relationship between a U.S. corporation (Teak Source) and two Chinese entities (Lausaint and Ningbo Re Mode). A key legal question will be unraveling liability: what is the precise role of each defendant in the manufacturing, importation, sale, and marketing of the Accused Products, and can the Plaintiff establish the requisite acts and intent to hold each party liable for direct, induced, and/or contributory infringement?
Knowledge and Willfulness: A central question for damages will be proving intent: can Plaintiff substantiate its allegations that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent, either through patent marking or by deliberately copying Plaintiff's product, and then continued to infringe even after receiving notice via the original lawsuit? The answer will determine the viability of the willful infringement claim and the potential for enhanced damages.