DCT
2:24-cv-00667
Ep Family Corp v. Office Kick Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EP Family Corp. (California)
- Defendant: Office Kick, Inc. (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wang IP Law Group, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00667, C.D. Cal., 03/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, has directed business and patent enforcement activities into the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its vertically adjusting desktop workspace products do not infringe two of Defendant’s patents.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns ergonomic, height-adjustable desktop converters designed to sit on top of existing desks, allowing users to switch between sitting and standing positions.
- Key Procedural History: The action arises from Defendant filing reports of patent infringement with Amazon against Plaintiff's products, alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit. The complaint states Defendant also initiated the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) procedure, creating a justiciable controversy that Plaintiff claims necessitates this declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-01-24 | Earliest Priority Date for ’843 and ’926 Patents |
| 2023-12-26 | U.S. Patent No. 11,849,843 Issues |
| 2024-01-04 | Plaintiff notified by Amazon of infringement report for ’843 Patent |
| 2024-01-09 | Plaintiff sends letter to Amazon refuting infringement report |
| 2024-01-12 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant requesting retraction of report |
| 2024-02-27 | U.S. Patent No. 11,910,926 Issues |
| 2024-03-05 | Plaintiff notified by Amazon of infringement report for ’926 Patent |
| 2024-03-20 | First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,849,843 - Desktop Workspace That Adjusts Vertically, issued December 26, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the health risks of prolonged sitting and notes that while height-adjustable desks exist, replacing an entire stationary desk is often unreasonable for users (’843 Patent, col. 1:33-48). The patent also identifies shortcomings in existing desktop converter platforms, including their tendency to protrude toward the user when raised, their use of limited preset height-locking mechanisms, and a need for improved compactness when lowered (’843 Patent, col. 1:52-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a desktop workspace converter that sits on an existing surface and provides variable height adjustment (’843 Patent, Abstract). The core of the solution is a height adjustment mechanism featuring at least one set of arms connected at a central pivot point, creating a "scissor motion" that raises and lowers a work surface platform in a "substantially straight motion so that it stays in-line with the base" (’843 Patent, col. 3:55-60). This mechanism is designed to be assisted by a force-providing element, such as a spring or motor, to aid in elevation (’843 Patent, col. 3:60-63).
- Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide a more ergonomic, space-efficient, and user-friendly way to convert a conventional desk into a sit-stand workstation without requiring replacement of the entire desk.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of "any of the valid claim[s]" but specifically argues that its products lack a "gas spring" as required by the patent (Compl. ¶22, 23). Independent claims 1, 15, 16, and 18 require a "gas spring." The elements of representative independent claim 1 include:
- A work surface platform;
- A platform element sitting on the work surface platform... including an elevated platform surface;
- A base configured to sit on an existing platform;
- A height adjustment mechanism connecting the work surface platform and the base, including first and second sets of pivot arms that connect at a scissoring pivot point;
- A base pivot point and a platform pivot point, both fixed;
- A sliding mechanism on an end of an arm;
- A gas spring that assists in elevation by applying a force;
- Wherein one end of the gas spring is fixed to the work surface platform;
- Wherein the gas spring acts as a locking device; and
- A handle that unlocks the locking device.
- The complaint reserves the right to address any claims asserted by Defendant (Compl. ¶22).
U.S. Patent No. 11,910,926 - Desktop Workspace that Adjusts Vertically, issued February 27, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’926 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’843 Patent, citing the health detriments of prolonged sitting and the need for improved desktop converter designs that are compact, stable, and user-friendly (’926 Patent, col. 1:38-65).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is also a vertically adjusting desktop workspace using a scissoring lift mechanism (’926 Patent, Abstract). A specific focus of the claimed invention is the structural arrangement of the components, such as the pivot arms and gas spring, to "align side-by-side when the desktop workspace is in a fully lowered position," which is intended to create a "substantially compact state" where the elements do not overlap (’926 Patent, col. 5:52-59).
- Technical Importance: This patent builds on the core concept of a desktop converter by claiming a specific compact structural arrangement for the lifting mechanism when it is in its collapsed state.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges non-infringement based on the accused product's lack of a "gas spring" and its failure to have a "side-by-side arrangement while in the fully lowered position" (Compl. ¶30). Independent claim 18 requires both of these features. The elements of independent claim 18 include:
- A work surface platform;
- A slidable tray;
- A base configured to sit on an existing platform;
- A height adjustment mechanism with a set of pivot arms creating a scissoring motion;
- A gas spring that assists in elevation;
- Wherein the gas spring, the set of pivot arms, the base pivot point, and the platform pivot point align side-by-side when the desktop workspace is in a fully lowered position such that the desktop workspace adjusts vertically.
- The complaint reserves the right to address any claims asserted by Defendant (Compl. ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies two groups of accused products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs). The ""843 Accused Product"" refers to ASINs B0BNG1RN9R, B095W8MDZP, B0B1VF2H2J, B095W87Z6K, B08MHTR2TF, and B0BPND59R6 (Compl. ¶12). The ""926 Accused Product"" refers to ASINs B0B8N6168T, B0BHL5YB5K, and B09M9LR6YV (Compl. ¶17).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide a technical description of the accused products' operation. The core of the complaint's factual allegations is what the products are not—specifically, that they do not use a "gas spring" and do not have a "side-by-side arrangement" when lowered (Compl. ¶23, ¶30). The products are sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com, and the Defendant's infringement reports to Amazon form the basis of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶12, ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following tables summarize the plaintiff's specific allegations of how its products fail to meet certain limitations of the asserted patents' independent claims.
"843 Patent" Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Plaintiff's Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a work surface platform | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 8:32-33 | |
| a platform element sitting on the work surface platform...including an elevated platform surface | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 8:34-37 | |
| a base configured to sit on an existing platform | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 8:38-39 | |
| a height adjustment mechanism...including: a first set of pivot arms that connect at a scissoring pivot point...a second set of pivot arms... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific mechanism, but implies a height adjustment mechanism exists. | col. 8:40-49 | |
| a gas spring that assists in elevation of the work surface platform...wherein the gas spring acts as a locking device | Plaintiff alleges the accused product "does not use a gas spring as part of the height adjustment mechanism as required by the '843 Patent." | ¶23 | col. 8:56-65 |
| a handle that unlocks the locking device | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 8:66-68 |
"926 Patent" Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) | Plaintiff's Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a work surface platform; a slidable tray... | The complaint does not contest these elements. | col. 9:18-23 | |
| a base configured to sit on an existing platform | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 10:16 | |
| a height adjustment mechanism...a set of pivot arms that connect at a scissoring pivot point... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific mechanism, but implies a height adjustment mechanism exists. | col. 10:21-26 | |
| a gas spring that assists in elevation of the work surface platform | Plaintiff alleges the accused product "does not use a gas spring." | ¶30 | col. 10:33-37 |
| wherein the gas spring, the set of pivot arms, the base pivot point, and the platform pivot point align side-by-side when the desktop workspace is in a fully lowered position | Plaintiff alleges the accused product does not "make a side-by-side arrangement while in the fully lowered position as required by the '926 Patent." | ¶30 | col. 10:38-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The primary dispute appears to be factual. Do the accused products incorporate a "gas spring"? The complaint does not specify what type of lifting-assist mechanism, if any, the products use instead. A second factual question for the ’926 Patent is whether the components of the accused product's lifting mechanism "align side-by-side" when fully collapsed.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of how the term "gas spring" should be construed. The patent specification lists "springs, gas springs, shock absorbers, an electric motor(s), or a linear actuator(s)" as distinct potential components, which may support a narrow construction that is distinguishable from other types of force-assist mechanisms (’843 Patent, col. 4:5-6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "gas spring"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted independent claims of both patents and is the primary basis for Plaintiff's non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶23, ¶30). The court's interpretation of this term, and the subsequent factual finding of whether the accused products contain such a component, appears central to the dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the general need for "an element or mechanism such as a spring or motor... to provide a force to assist in the elevation of the work surface platform" (’843 Patent, col. 3:60-63). A party could argue that "gas spring" should be construed to encompass a class of gas-pressurized assistance mechanisms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a list of distinct potential components for the height adjustment mechanism, including "springs, gas springs, shock absorbers, an electric motor(s), or a linear actuator(s)" (’843 Patent, col. 4:5-6). The explicit differentiation in this list suggests the patentee considered a "gas spring" to be a specific type of component, separate from a generic "spring" or a "motor." This supports a narrower construction that would not read on other types of assist mechanisms.
The Term: "align side-by-side when the desktop workspace is in a fully lowered position"
Context and Importance: This phrase from claim 18 of the ’926 Patent is the second specific basis for Plaintiff's declared non-infringement (Compl. ¶30). The definition will be critical to determining if the physical structure of the accused product in its collapsed state meets this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "side-by-side" only requires the components to be generally adjacent in a left-right orientation, without a strict requirement for coplanarity. The general description focuses on achieving a compact state (’926 Patent, col. 5:52-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that this arrangement allows the elements "to not overlap... providing a substantially compact state" and a "sleek" look (’926 Patent, col. 5:55-59). This stated purpose of avoiding overlap to achieve compactness could support a narrower definition requiring the components to lie substantially in the same vertical plane without protruding in front of or behind one another.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and does not infringe the patents-in-suit, "either directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶26, ¶33). The complaint does not plead specific facts regarding indirect infringement but seeks to resolve its liability for all forms of infringement alleged by the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue for both patents will be one of technical fact: Do the accused products, as sold, contain the specific "gas spring" component required by the asserted claims? The case may depend heavily on evidence related to the actual mechanical composition of Plaintiff's products.
- For the '926 Patent, a central question will be one of structural scope: Can the phrase "align side-by-side," which the patent links to achieving a "compact state" by avoiding overlap, be interpreted to read on the physical configuration of the accused product's mechanism when fully lowered?