DCT

2:25-cv-06507

Bendpak Inc v. Vevor Technology LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-06507, C.D. Cal., 07/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants' alleged business operations within the district, including a retail store in Rancho Cucamonga, and targeted e-commerce sales to California consumers.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable automobile lifts infringe the ornamental designs protected by four of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves low-profile, portable scissor-style automobile lifts, which are marketed to professional mechanics, car collectors, and automotive enthusiasts.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents form a family, with U.S. Patent No. D716,514 serving as the parent. U.S. Patent No. D748,361 is a continuation-in-part of the ’514 patent, and U.S. Patent Nos. D759,935 and D759,936 are continuations of the ’361 patent. This prosecution history may be relevant to determining the scope and novelty of each claimed design.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-09-16 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D716,514
2014-08-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D748,361
2014-10-28 U.S. Patent No. D716,514 Issued
2015-12-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D759,935
2015-12-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D759,936
2016-01-26 U.S. Patent No. D748,361 Issued
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. D759,935 Issued
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. D759,936 Issued
2025-07-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • U.S. Design Patent No. D759,936, “PORTABLE AUTOMOBILE LIFT” (Issued: June 21, 2016)

    • The Invention Explained:
      • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the same manner as utility patents; they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D’936 Patent, Claim).
      • The Patented Solution: The ’936 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a portable automobile lift. The design's overall visual impression is characterized by a low-profile, collapsible frame with parallel lift rails, a scissor-like lifting mechanism composed of intersecting support arms, and the particular placement and appearance of a hydraulic cylinder and cross-bracing, as depicted in the patent's figures (D’936 Patent, Fig. 1). The complaint notes that Plaintiff's "QUICKJACK" products are made in accordance with the patented designs (Compl. ¶6).
      • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products embodying the patented designs are "premier products in the industry" and "highly desirable" (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 21), suggesting the commercial significance of the product's unique appearance.
    • Key Claims at a Glance:
      • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a portable automobile lift, as shown and described" (D’936 Patent, Claim).
      • The scope of protection is defined by the features shown in solid lines in the patent's drawings.
      • The patent states that features shown in broken lines illustrate portions of the article that "form no part of the claimed design" (D’936 Patent, Description).

  • U.S. Design Patent No. D759,935, “PORTABLE AUTOMOBILE LIFT” (Issued: June 21, 2016)

    • The Invention Explained:
      • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’935 Patent protects the ornamental appearance of an article, not a solution to a technical problem (D’935 Patent, Claim).
      • The Patented Solution: The ’935 Patent claims an ornamental design for a portable automobile lift that is visually similar to the design in the ’936 Patent. It likewise consists of the overall aesthetic created by the frame, lifting arms, and component layout (D’935 Patent, Fig. 1). A subtle but potentially significant difference from the related ’936 Patent is the more extensive use of broken lines for certain linkage components, which may affect the scope of the claimed design (D’935 Patent, Figs. 1-3).
      • Technical Importance: The complaint groups this patent with others as embodying the design of its "highly sought out" QUICKJACK products (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 11).
    • Key Claims at a Glance:
      • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a portable automobile lift, as shown and described" (D’935 Patent, Claim).
      • The scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings, while the broken lines disclaim the illustrated matter from the scope of the claim (D’935 Patent, Description).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D716,514

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D716,514, “PORTABLE AUTOMOBILE LIFT,” Issued October 28, 2014.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, the earliest in the asserted family, protects the ornamental design for a portable automobile lift. The claimed design encompasses the overall visual configuration of the lift's frame, cross-members, and lifting mechanism as depicted in its figures (D’514 Patent, Figs. 1-7; Compl. ¶12).
    • Asserted Claims: The patent’s single design claim.
    • Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of Defendants' VEVOR-branded portable automobile lifts is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D748,361

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D748,361, “PORTABLE AUTOMOBILE LIFT,” Issued January 26, 2016.
    • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation-in-part of the ’514 Patent, this patent protects a related ornamental design for a portable automobile lift. The claim covers the specific visual appearance of the lift's structure as shown in the solid lines of the patent drawings (D’361 Patent, Figs. 1-7; Compl. ¶13).
    • Asserted Claims: The patent’s single design claim.
    • Accused Features: The overall design of the accused VEVOR portable lifts is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are portable automobile lifts sold by Defendants under the VEVOR brand (Compl. ¶3).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the accused products as functionally equivalent to Plaintiff's "QUICKJACK" lifts, designed to raise automobiles for service or storage (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 27). Defendants are alleged to sell these products through online channels, including "vevorus.com" and an Amazon storefront, as well as a brick-and-mortar retail location in California (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges the VEVOR products are in "direct competition" with Plaintiff's products (Compl. p. 9, ¶28). The complaint provides two images of the accused VEVOR lifts from different angles, showing a black, low-profile, scissor-style lift mechanism with a hydraulic cylinder (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the assertion that the overall ornamental appearance of the accused VEVOR lifts is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the BendPak patents. The complaint alleges the accused products are "substantially identical in configuration, dimensions and appearance" to Plaintiff's products and "almost indistinguishable" when compared side-by-side (Compl. ¶27). A further visual comparison shows two vehicles, one on a 'QUICKJACK' lift and one on a 'VEVOR' lift, to allege the products are 'almost indistinguishable' in use (Compl. ¶27, p. 8).

The central test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design. This analysis involves comparing the designs in the context of the prior art.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Overall Similarity: The core question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser would, would be deceived into purchasing the VEVOR product believing it to be the BendPak product. The court will compare the overall visual impression of the accused lifts against the specific designs claimed in each of the four patents.
    • Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A likely point of dispute will be the separation of functional elements from the claimed ornamental design. The defense may argue that similarities between the products are dictated by the lift's mechanical function and are therefore not protectable by a design patent. The court's analysis will focus only on the non-functional, ornamental aspects of the designs.
    • Role of Prior Art: The infringement analysis must be conducted in view of the prior art. The scope of the claimed design, and the significance of any differences between it and the accused product, will be evaluated against what was already known in the field.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the drawing of the design, so traditional construction of textual terms is generally not at issue. The analysis instead focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.

  • The "Term": The scope of the claimed design as defined by the use of solid versus broken lines in the patent drawings.
  • Context and Importance: The distinction between solid and broken lines is fundamental to defining the scope of a design patent claim. Practitioners may focus on this issue because features shown in broken lines are disclaimed, meaning the patent is not limited to an article having that specific disclaimed feature. This can broaden the effective scope of the patent. The subtle differences in what is claimed (solid lines) versus disclaimed (broken lines) across the four asserted patents could lead to different infringement outcomes for each patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents explicitly state that broken lines depict portions of the article that "form no part of the claimed design" (e.g., D’935 Patent, Description). A party could argue that a patent with more broken lines (disclaimed elements) is broader in scope because it covers a wider of products, so long as they incorporate the core claimed ornamental features shown in solid lines.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that a design with more features shown in solid lines (e.g., D’936 Patent compared to D’935 Patent) is limited to the specific combination of all those claimed features. The inclusion of more detail in solid lines narrows the claim scope, making it easier for an accused product to avoid infringement by omitting or altering one of those details.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to products that "indirectly" infringe and includes a request to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement in its prayer for relief (Compl. ¶18; ¶A(2)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infringement is and has been "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20, 26). The complaint frames Defendants as "unscrupulous copycats" (Compl. ¶7) and asserts the infringement was conducted knowingly, which forms the basis for the request for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶D). The complaint does not allege specific facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patents, such as notice via a cease-and-desist letter.

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

  1. A central issue will be the application of the ordinary observer test: When viewed in the context of the relevant prior art, is the overall ornamental design of the accused VEVOR lift "substantially the same" as the specific designs claimed in BendPak’s patents, such that a purchaser would be deceived?
  2. A key question for the court will be to distinguish functional from ornamental features. The analysis will likely require determining which aspects of the portable lift's design are dictated by its mechanical function and therefore unprotectable, and which contribute to the unique ornamental appearance that is the subject of the design patents.
  3. The case may also turn on the differing scope of the asserted patents. Given the variations in the use of solid and broken lines across the patent family, a key question will be whether the accused design infringes all, some, or none of the patents, each of which claims a slightly different ornamental combination.