DCT

2:25-cv-01568

Ep Family Corp v. Office Kick Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01568, C.D. Cal., 02/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and has directed patent enforcement activities against Plaintiff's business, which operates within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for twenty-two U.S. patents owned by Defendant related to vertically adjusting desktop workspaces.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves sit-stand desk converters, which are placed on existing desks to allow users to raise and lower their work surfaces, facilitating alternation between sitting and standing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was precipitated by a patent infringement report filed by Defendant Office Kick with Amazon against Plaintiff's products, specifically citing U.S. Patent No. 11,864,654. The complaint also notes a prior, separate declaratory judgment action between the parties concerning two other patents, which has been stayed pending the outcome of inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-01-24 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2019-04-02 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,244,861
2020-02-25 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,568,416
2020-03-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,575,630
2021-01-05 Issue Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 11,134,773 and 11,134,774
2021-10-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,140,977
2021-11-02 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,160,367
2022-07-19 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,388,989
2022-10-11 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,464,325
2022-10-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,470,959
2023-10-31 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,800,927
2024-01-02 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,857,073
2024-01-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,864,654
2024-03-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,925,264
2024-04-02 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,944,196
2024-04-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,950,699
2024-05-14 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,980,289
2024-09-10 Issue Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 12,082,695 and 12,082,696
2024-10-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,102,229
2024-10-22 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,121,149
2025-01-09 Defendant files patent infringement report with Amazon
2025-02-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,244,861 - "Desktop Workspace that Adjusts Vertically"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for improvement in existing adjustable desk platforms, citing a desire for straight vertical motion that does not protrude toward the operator when raised, a locking mechanism not limited to preset heights, and a more compact design when lowered (’861 Patent, col. 2:45-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a vertically adjustable desktop workspace that sits on an existing desk. It employs a height adjustment mechanism with at least one set of arms that use a "scissor motion" to raise and lower a work surface platform (’861 Patent, col. 2:55-62). This mechanism is designed to provide smooth vertical movement without lateral protrusion (Compl. ¶7; ’861 Patent, col. 4:62-67). Figure 1 of the patent depicts the overall structure, showing the work surface (10), base (12), and the scissoring height adjustment mechanism (14).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide an ergonomic and space-efficient solution for converting a standard stationary desk into a sit-stand workspace without requiring the user to purchase an entirely new desk (’861 Patent, col. 2:36-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment covering all claims but does not specify which claims were asserted by the Defendant in its Amazon notice (Compl. ¶16). Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 are present in the patent.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A work surface platform.
    • A base configured to sit on an existing platform.
    • A height adjustment mechanism connecting the platform and base, which includes two sets of scissoring arms and a stabilizing crossbeam.
    • Base pivot points fixed to the base and platform pivot points fixed to the work surface.
    • A sliding mechanism on an end of an arm.
    • A linear actuator with a housing and a shaft, configured to drive the scissoring motion.
    • A specific geometric arrangement wherein the actuator extends parallel to the work surface and connects between the work surface's bottom and the stabilizing crossbeam.

U.S. Patent No. 10,568,416 - "Desktop Workspace that Adjusts Vertically"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, part of the same family as the ’861 Patent, addresses the same technical problems in the field of sit-stand desk converters, focusing on ergonomic and design improvements over prior art (’416 Patent, col. 1:45-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a vertically adjustable desktop workspace that adds a keyboard platform to the core scissor-lift mechanism. A key feature is a geometric limitation requiring the linear actuator to be "completely covered by a profile of the work surface platform when viewed from above," which contributes to a more compact and streamlined appearance (’416 Patent, col. 5:7-14; col. 8:51-57).
  • Technical Importance: This design seeks to improve aesthetics and safety by concealing the lifting mechanism from a top-down view, addressing a stated area for improvement in the field (’416 Patent, col. 1:52-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). Independent claims 1, 7, and 19 are present in the patent.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A work surface platform and a separate keyboard platform.
    • A base for sitting on an existing platform.
    • A height adjustment mechanism with two sets of scissoring arms, fixed base and platform pivot points, and a sliding mechanism.
    • An element connecting the two sets of arms.
    • A linear actuator attached to the connecting element to drive the scissoring motion.
    • A requirement that the linear actuator is "completely covered by a profile of the work surface platform when viewed from above."

Multi-Patent Capsule: Additional Patents-in-Suit

  • The complaint seeks declaratory judgment on 20 additional patents, all titled "Desktop Workspace That Adjusts Vertically" and belonging to the same patent family (Compl. ¶1, ¶7). These patents appear to cover variations and incremental improvements on the core scissor-lift desk converter technology, including different configurations of lifting mechanisms (e.g., gas springs vs. linear actuators), locking systems, and keyboard tray attachments. The declaratory judgment action covers all claims of these patents. The accused instrumentality is the "Plaintiff's Accused Product" identified by ASINs (Compl. ¶10).
  • U.S. Patent No. 10,575,630: Issued 03/03/2020.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,134,773: Issued 10/05/2021.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,134,774: Issued 10/05/2021.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,140,977: Issued 10/12/2021.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,160,367: Issued 11/02/2021.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,388,989: Issued 07/19/2022.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,464,325: Issued 10/11/2022.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,470,959: Issued 10/18/2022.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,800,927: Issued 10/31/2023.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,857,073: Issued 01/02/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,864,654: Issued 01/09/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,925,264: Issued 03/12/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,944,196: Issued 04/02/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,950,699: Issued 04/09/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,980,289: Issued 05/14/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 12,082,695: Issued 09/10/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 12,082,696: Issued 09/10/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 12,102,229: Issued 10/01/2024.
  • U.S. Patent No. 12,121,149: Issued 10/22/2024.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Plaintiff's Accused Product" is identified in the complaint by a list of nine Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs): B095W87Z6K, B0BPND59R6, B095W8MDZP, B0B8N6168T, B09M9LR6YV, B0BNG1RN9R, B0BHL5YB5K, B0B1VF2H2J, and B08MHTR2TF (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide a technical description of the Accused Product's features or functionality. It is presented as a product sold on Amazon that was the subject of an infringement notice from the Defendant (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and thus does not contain specific infringement allegations against the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff makes a general assertion that its Accused Product does not infringe any valid claims of the OKI Patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). No claim chart or detailed infringement theory is provided for analysis.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Jurisdictional Question: The complaint is premised on an infringement notice concerning only one of the twenty-two patents-in-suit ('654 Patent) (Compl. ¶10). This raises the question of whether a sufficient case or controversy exists for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the other twenty-one patents in the family.
  • Technical Question: Based on the claim language of the patents-in-suit, a likely point of contention will be the specific type of lifting mechanism used. For example, Claim 1 of the '861 Patent requires a "linear actuator" with a specific housing-and-shaft structure, whereas other patents in the family may claim different mechanisms like gas springs. The infringement analysis for each patent may depend on whether the Accused Product's lifting mechanism meets these specific claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "linear actuator"

(from ’861 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is central to defining the drive mechanism in the '861 Patent. The patent family discloses various force-assisting mechanisms, but this claim explicitly recites a "linear actuator." Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as products using other mechanisms (e.g., gas springs, coil springs) may not infringe this claim.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for analysis of this element. A party seeking a broader interpretation may argue for the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly distinguishes between a linear actuator and other mechanisms, stating, "FIG. 4 illustrates element 36 as a linear actuator, while FIG. 5C illustrates element 36 as a pair of springs" (’861 Patent, col. 6:64-67). This statement suggests that the patentee viewed these as distinct structures. Furthermore, the claim describes the actuator as "including a housing fixed to the work surface platform and a shaft that extends and retracts from the housing," providing specific structural limitations that may support a narrower construction (’861 Patent, col. 8:23-27).

The Term: "completely covered by a profile of the work surface platform when viewed from above"

(from ’416 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines a spatial and aesthetic feature of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends entirely on the physical arrangement of the accused product's components. Whether any portion of the actuator is visible from a direct top-down view could be dispositive.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for analysis of this element. A party could argue that "completely" allows for de minimis or incidental visibility that does not depart from the spirit of the invention.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The word "completely" is an absolute term. The patent's summary notes "improved appearance, and a more compact design once in a lowered position" as areas for improvement over the prior art (’416 Patent, col. 1:52-56). A defendant would likely argue that this "completely covered" limitation was a key feature for achieving that improved, compact appearance and should be strictly construed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Plaintiff is not infringing "either directly or indirectly" but alleges no specific facts relating to inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶17).
  • Willful Infringement: This allegation is not made in the complaint, as Plaintiff is the accused infringer seeking a declaratory judgment.

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

  • A core issue will be one of jurisdictional scope: Does the Defendant’s infringement notice to Amazon regarding a single patent (’654) create a sufficient and immediate controversy for the court to adjudicate the non-infringement and validity of all twenty-two patents in the family, or will the case be narrowed to the patent explicitly asserted?
  • A central claim construction question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "linear actuator", as claimed in patents like the ’861 Patent, be construed broadly to encompass other common lifting mechanisms such as gas springs, or does the patent's own text limit the term to a specific motor-driven device, thereby creating a clear path to non-infringement for products using different technology?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of geometric compliance: For patents like the ’416 Patent, does the accused product's lifting mechanism remain "completely covered" by the work surface from a top-down view? This presents a factual dispute that will likely rely on inspection and expert analysis of the physical product.