2:24-cv-00745
Jinguang wen v. Individuals Corps
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jinguang Wen (Washington)
- Defendant: Glossy Auto Parts, et al. (a collection of entities allegedly operating in China and the United States)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of Gary F. Wang
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00745, C.D. Cal., 02/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting consumers in the United States and California through interactive online stores, accepting payment in U.S. dollars, and shipping products into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online storefronts on platforms like Amazon and eBay are selling vehicle seat swivels that infringe his U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is a mechanical swivel base for vehicle seats, commonly used in recreational vehicles to allow a seat to rotate for improved cabin access and versatility.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously provided notice of infringement to the online marketplace platforms (e.g., Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Alibaba) where the accused products are sold, but the platforms refused to remove the listings without a court order.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-08-01 | Plaintiff allegedly begins selling his Swivel product |
| 2020-05-08 | '627 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2023-01-31 | U.S. Design Patent No. D976,627 issues |
| 2023-01-01 | (Approx.) Plaintiff discovers Defendants' alleged infringement |
| 2024-02-26 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D976,627 S - "SWIVEL"
Issued January 31, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent itself, as a design patent, does not describe a technical problem. However, the complaint provides context, stating that the swivel is commonly installed in recreational vehicles to allow a passenger or driver seat to turn, thereby "allowing ease of access in and out of the seat" (Compl. ¶7).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental design for a vehicle seat swivel. The scope of protection is defined by the visual appearance of the swivel as depicted in the patent's seven figures, which show the design from perspective, top, bottom, front, rear, and side views (’627 Patent, Figs. 1-7; Claim).
- Technical Importance: The swivel mechanism itself allows for greater flexibility in vehicle interior configurations, a feature of particular relevance in the recreational vehicle market (Compl. ¶7).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the ’627 Patent (Compl. ¶45).
- As a design patent, there is only one claim: "The ornamental design for a swivel, as shown and described" (’627 Patent, Claim). This claim protects the overall visual appearance of the article depicted in the patent's drawings.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "Swivels" that are allegedly "identical" to the patented design and sold by the numerous named Defendants through online storefronts on Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Alibaba.com, and eBay.com (Compl. ¶2, ¶19, ¶47). The complaint collectively refers to these as the "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendants are part of a coordinated infringement scheme involving the manufacturing, importation, and sale of counterfeit products that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶22, ¶36). The complaint provides a photograph of what it identifies as an "Infringing Product." This photograph depicts a vehicle seat swivel with a central rotating plate, mounting holes, and a release lever (Compl. p. 9). The complaint further alleges that Defendants use online advertising, including Google Ads, to promote the accused products to consumers in the district (Compl. ¶51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. Instead, it makes a direct assertion of infringement based on visual identity. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused article, believing it to be the patented design.
The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the allegation that Defendants have "made, imported, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale swivels that infringe on the '627 Patent" (Compl. ¶47). This theory is supported by the claim that the accused products are "identical Swivels" (Compl. ¶47) and is visually represented by a single photograph of an allegedly "Infringing Product" (Compl. p. 9). The core of the infringement allegation is a direct visual comparison between the design shown in the ’627 Patent’s figures and the products sold by the Defendants.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central infringement question will be a visual one: Is the overall ornamental design of the products sold by each Defendant substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’627 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived?
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the Plaintiff will be to establish that the specific products sold by each of the dozens of named Defendants are, in fact, the same as or substantially similar to the single product depicted in the complaint's photograph (Compl. p. 9).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction does not involve interpreting disputed text-based terms as it would in a utility patent case. The "claim" is the design itself, as shown in the drawings. A court may articulate a description of the ornamental features of the design to guide the jury, but there are no specific terms from the single claim—"The ornamental design for a swivel, as shown and described"—that require construction in the traditional sense. The analysis will focus entirely on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by "advertising the Infringing Product in media within the Central District of California, including Google Ads," which in turn induces customers to purchase the product (Compl. ¶51-52).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness allegation is based on the claim that Defendants acted "knowingly, and deliberately with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s patent rights" (Compl. ¶53). This is supported by the factual allegation that Defendants were notified of the infringement via the online marketplace platforms but "have been and continue to infringe" (Compl. ¶48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of proof and joinder: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove that each of the dozens of separately-named Defendants sold a product with a design substantially similar to that of the ’627 Patent? The court will also need to determine whether the claims against these numerous, disparate sellers arise from the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" to permit joinder under federal rules.
- The case may turn on a question of patent validity: The complaint alleges Plaintiff began "manufacturing and selling the Swivel" in August 2019 (Compl. ¶46), which is more than one year prior to the patent's filing date of May 8, 2020. This allegation raises the question of whether the patented design was subject to a statutory on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which could render the patent invalid if proven.
- The core infringement analysis will be one of visual comparison: Assuming the patent is valid and the Defendants’ products are properly identified, the ultimate question for the fact-finder will be whether an ordinary observer would find the accused products and the patented design to be substantially the same.