DCT

2:24-cv-09277

Zhejiang Zhengte Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-09277, C.D. Cal., 10/28/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant Shenzhen Lanbiaoyi Technology because it is a foreign company that may be sued in any judicial district. Venue is alleged to be proper as to the California-based Aukey Defendants based on their purported business contacts and sales within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ louvered pergolas infringe a patent related to specific pergola assembly mechanisms and integrated rainwater drainage systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to outdoor furniture, specifically user-assembled pergolas, with a focus on innovations that simplify assembly while improving aesthetics and weather-related functionality.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has marked its commercial products with the patent number, which may be relevant to the claims for willful infringement and damages.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-05-28 '187 Patent Priority Date
2023-04-11 '187 Patent Issue Date
2024-10-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187 - "Pergola," issued April 11, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes numerous deficiencies in prior art pergolas, such as complex assembly, ineffective water management that leads to clogging or staining, and a lack of integrated, user-friendly features (U.S. Patent No. 11,624,187, col. 8:5-13:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-functional louvered pergola designed for simplified assembly and improved water drainage (Compl. ¶12). It features a connection system where securing bars at the ends of the cross beams slide into internal slots on the corner posts, creating a clean, fastener-free appearance (Compl. ¶15; ’187 Patent, col. 35:1-5). It also specifies an integrated gutter system where rainwater is collected in channels within the beams and directed down through internal conduits in the corner posts, releasing through an aperture at the bottom (Compl. ¶16; ’187 Patent, Fig. 3S).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a pergola that combines aesthetic design with practical functionality, specifically simplifying assembly for the end-user and creating a durable, self-draining structure suitable for various weather conditions (Compl. ¶12; ’187 Patent, col. 14:14-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 for direct infringement and dependent Claim 10 for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶26).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • Four corner posts, each with a top and bottom, an internal beam securing mechanism, an internal conduit, and a lower aperture for water drainage.
    • Four beams, each with an internal gutter along its length and at least one securing bar at each end.
    • A connection where the securing bar of each beam "slidably" attaches into an "internal beam securing slot" of a corner post.
    • An "internal gutter system" comprising the gutters in the beams and the conduits in the posts, which are in fluid communication to drain captured rainwater.
    • An "outer surface" on each post and beam that faces outward from the pergola.
    • A plurality of louvers connected across the beams to form a cover.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in the future.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "Cecarol-branded pergolas," with the "Cecarol No-Corrosion Louvered Pergola" identified as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as louvered pergolas sold through online retailers such as Amazon, Wayfair, and Pinterest (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is a "blatant knock-off" of the Plaintiff's patented pergola and has "substantially the same construction" (Compl. ¶17, ¶19). To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of the Accused Product and what it identifies as the Plaintiff's pergola (Compl. ¶18). This image shows two visually similar dark-colored, freestanding louvered pergolas (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "attached claim chart (Exhibit B)" to detail its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit with the filing (Compl. ¶17, ¶20). Therefore, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement theory is that the Accused Product is a "knock-off" that copies the patented features (Compl. ¶18, ¶19). The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’187 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The complaint highlights two key innovative features of the patented pergola: a unique assembly system using securing bars and internal slots, and an internal gutter system for drainage (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). The complaint reproduces figures from the ’187 Patent to illustrate these features, such as Figure 2Q showing the assembly of a cross beam to a corner post and Figure 3S showing the water flow path from a beam into a post (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). By presenting these figures in the context of infringement, the complaint suggests that the Accused Products incorporate these same patented mechanisms.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: Without a detailed claim chart, a primary question is whether the Accused Product's components function in the manner required by the claims. For example, does the Accused Product's beam-to-post connection involve a "securing bar" that "slidably" fits into an "internal beam securing slot," or does it use a different attachment method? Does its drainage system constitute an "internal gutter system" in "fluid communication" with conduits in the posts?
    • Scope Questions: The final two limitations of Claim 1, which both relate to the "outer surface" of the posts and beams, may raise questions of scope or redundancy. The court may be asked to determine if these clauses impose distinct structural limitations that must be met or if they are merely descriptive.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "internal beam securing slot"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed assembly method, which Plaintiff characterizes as a key innovation for achieving a "clean and fastener-free outer surface" (Compl. ¶15). The construction of this term will define the required structure for connecting the beams to the posts.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the precise shape, depth, or configuration of the "slot," which could support a construction covering any internal recess that receives the securing bar.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, including Figure 2Q reproduced in the complaint, depicts a specific embodiment where securing bars (125) are inserted vertically into slots (135) at the top of the corner post (122) (’187 Patent, Fig. 2Q). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the term to a fully enclosed slot that conceals the connection mechanism.

  • The Term: "internal gutter system"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the patented water management feature. Its construction will determine the structural and functional requirements for an infringing drainage system.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires a system comprising "internal gutters" in the beams and "internal conduits" in the posts that are in "fluid communications." This could be construed to read on any structure with channels inside the beams and posts that guide water.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and detailed description refer to a "leaf-separating-discharging" system (’187 Patent, Abstract). While "leaf-separating" is not in Claim 1, a party could argue that the term "internal gutter system" as used in the patent implies more than simple drainage and requires features that prevent clogging, as depicted in figures like 3T (’187 Patent, Fig. 3T).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement of at least Claim 10, a dependent claim, but does not plead specific facts, such as citing product manuals or advertising, that would show Defendants encouraged specific infringing acts by end-users (Compl. ¶26).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff marked its commercial products with the ’187 Patent number, providing constructive notice (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that Defendants had actual knowledge because they "secured a commercial copy of Plaintiff's patented pergola and thereafter directly copied this pergola" (Compl. ¶24).

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

  • A central evidentiary issue will be one of technical proof: In the absence of a detailed claim chart in the complaint, can Plaintiff demonstrate that the Accused Product’s assembly and drainage components meet, on a limitation-by-limitation basis, the specific structural and functional requirements of Claim 1, particularly given the "knock-off" theory of infringement?
  • The case may hinge on a question of claim construction: How the court construes key structural terms like "internal beam securing slot" and "internal gutter system" will be critical. The central dispute will likely be whether these terms are limited to the specific configurations shown in the patent's figures or if they have a broader scope that could cover functionally similar but structurally different designs.
  • A key factual dispute will surround willfulness: The court will likely need to evaluate the evidence supporting the allegation of direct copying, as this claim, if proven, goes beyond constructive notice from patent marking and suggests a deliberate disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights, which could substantially impact a potential damages award.