Zhejiang Zhengte Co Ltd v. SOJAG Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zhejiang Zhengte Co. Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: SOJAG INC. d/b/a BACCHI GAZEBO (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-06020, C.D. Cal., 07/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation and therefore may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges personal jurisdiction based on Defendant's business activities and product sales within California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hana" line of louvered pergolas infringes a patent related to pergola assembly methods and integrated rainwater drainage systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns outdoor structures, specifically consumer-assembled pergolas featuring adjustable louvered roofs and internal water management systems designed for ease of assembly and a clean aesthetic.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has marked its commercial pergolas with the asserted patent number, which may be relevant to pre-suit notice and damages. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-05-28	Earliest Priority Date for ’187 Patent
2023-04-11	U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187 B2 Issues
2024-07-17	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187 B2 - "Pergola"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187 B2, "Pergola", issued April 11, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art pergolas as often being difficult to assemble, lacking effective and aesthetically pleasing water drainage, and failing to integrate multiple features cleanly (’187 Patent, col. 7:8-13, col. 13:14-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-function pergola designed for simplified assembly and integrated water management. A key feature is a specific assembly method where cross beams, containing internal gutters, connect to corner posts via "securing bars" that slide into "internal beam securing slots" at the top of the posts (Compl. ¶12; ’187 Patent, Fig. 2Q). This assembly results in a fastener-free outer appearance and a characteristic offset between the beam and post surfaces (Compl. ¶21-22). Rainwater collected by the louvers flows into the beam gutters, then into internal conduits within the corner posts, and finally exits through an aperture near the base, keeping the drainage system hidden (’187 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3S).
• Technical Importance: The invention purports to provide a consumer-friendly, all-in-one pergola solution that combines adjustable shade, integrated drainage, and a streamlined assembly process into a single product (’187 Patent, col. 14:20-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶14, ¶20).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’187 Patent recites the essential elements of the pergola structure:
  • Four corner posts, each with an internal beam securing mechanism, an internal water conduit, and a drainage aperture at the bottom.
  • Four beams, each with an internal gutter and a securing bar at each end.
  • A specific connection where the securing bar of a beam slidably attaches into the securing slot of a corner post.
  • An integrated internal gutter system formed by the gutters in the beams and the conduits in the posts, creating a continuous flow path for rainwater.
  • A structural requirement that the outer surface of the beam is "offset" with the outer surface of the corner post.
  • A plurality of louvers connected across the beams to form a roof cover.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names Defendant’s "Hana" Louvered Pergola (all sizes) and any other louvered pergolas sold by the Defendant with "substantially the same construction" as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "obvious knock-off[s]" of the Plaintiff's patented pergola (Compl. ¶15). A side-by-side photographic comparison is provided to illustrate the alleged visual and structural similarity between the Defendant's product (left) and the Plaintiff's product (right) (Compl. ¶15, p. 7). The complaint asserts that the Accused Products infringe the patented features, including the unique assembly system and the internal gutter system (Compl. ¶12-13, ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "attached claim chart (Exhibit A)" to detail its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶14, ¶20). The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement theory presented in the body of the complaint. The complaint uses patent figures to illustrate the claimed invention, such as an exploded view of the beam-to-post connection (Compl. ¶12, p. 5, showing Fig. 2Q from the ’187 patent) and a cutaway of the internal drainage system (Compl. ¶13, p. 6, showing Fig. 3S from the ’187 patent).

Plaintiff's infringement theory appears to be grounded in the allegation that the Accused Product is a direct copy that incorporates the core structural features of Claim 1. The complaint alleges the Accused Product utilizes a similar assembly method where cross beams are attached to corner posts by slidably inserting securing bars into internal slots, resulting in a "clean and fastener-free outer surface" and an "offset" between the beam and post (Compl. ¶12). Further, it alleges the Accused Product includes an "internal gutter system" where rainwater drains from the roof into internal gutters within the beams, then into an internal conduit in each corner post, and finally exits through a lower aperture (Compl. ¶13).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "offset." The parties may contest whether the specific alignment of the beam and post in the accused "Hana" pergola constitutes an "offset" as that term is used and described in the context of the ’187 patent.
• Technical Questions: Without the detailed claim chart, it is an open question what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that the Accused Product's components meet every limitation of Claim 1. For example, a key factual question will be whether the Accused Product's drainage system functions precisely as claimed, with water flowing from internal beam gutters directly into internal post conduits, or if there is a functional or structural difference in the water path that could place it outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"offset with the outer surface of each corner post" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines a specific structural and aesthetic relationship between the primary horizontal and vertical members of the pergola. The complaint identifies this offset as a key feature of the patented invention (Compl. ¶21-22). The existence and nature of this offset in the Accused Product will likely be a significant point of contention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not quantify the "offset." A party arguing for a broader scope may contend that any non-flush alignment between the outer surfaces of the beam and post meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this feature to a "clean and fastener-free outer surface" (Compl. ¶20-21). A party arguing for a narrower scope may assert that "offset" must be construed in light of the embodiments shown in figures like 2Q and 9F, which depict a specific recessed relationship that achieves this aesthetic goal.

"internal beam securing mechanism" / "internal beam securing slot" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: These terms are central to the claimed method of assembly, which the complaint highlights as a "unique system" (Compl. ¶12). Infringement will depend on whether the connection components of the Accused Product fall within the scope of this "mechanism" and "slot."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition. A party could argue the terms should be read broadly to encompass various internal connection systems that secure a beam within a post.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates this concept with figures showing one or more securing bars (125) that are inserted into corresponding slots (135) inside the corner post (122) (e.g., ’187 Patent, Fig. 2Q). A defendant might argue that the terms should be limited to this specific "bar-in-slot" configuration.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by the Defendant and does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement, seeking treble damages (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). The allegations are based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge, asserting that Defendant had notice of the patent through Plaintiff's patent marking on its commercial products and, on information and belief, through having "carefully studied or indeed secured a commercial copy of Plaintiff's patented pergola" before continuing to manufacture and sell the accused products (Compl. ¶21-22).

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

1. Evidentiary Proof of Copying: The complaint’s narrative leans heavily on the assertion that the Accused Product is a "blatant knock-off." A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can substantiate this claim with evidence of copying, as this could influence the analysis of willfulness and potentially infringement itself, or whether Defendant can demonstrate independent design.
2. Claim Scope and Structural Equivalence: The case will likely turn on the construction of key structural limitations in Claim 1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the specific connection described as an "internal beam securing mechanism" and the resultant "offset" between the beam and post, as claimed, read on the precise construction of the Defendant's pergola? The resolution will depend on whether the court finds the Accused Product's features to be structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed elements.
3. Mapping the Accused Product to the Claims: As the complaint was filed without its referenced claim chart exhibit, a critical stage of the case will be the disclosure and analysis of Plaintiff’s detailed infringement contentions. The viability of the infringement claim will depend on Plaintiff’s ability to map each and every element of Claim 1 onto the specific components and functions of the accused "Hana" pergola.