DCT
5:22-cv-01947
XIANGSHAN Zhang v. VIVOSUN Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xiangshan Zhang (China)
- Defendant: VIVOSUN Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
- Case Identification: 5:22-cv-01947, C.D. Cal., 11/03/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a California corporation with a principal place of business in the district, has committed infringing acts in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s collapsible utility wagon infringes a patent related to a specific folding mechanism for trailers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical designs for collapsible carts, where the goal is to achieve a minimal folded volume for easier storage and transport.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has licensed the patent-in-suit to six U.S. distributors. It further alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent as of September 15, 2022, based on direct communications between the parties, and as of September 22, 2022, based on an infringement report filed with Amazon.com.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-09-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,633,010 |
| 2020-04-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,633,010 Issued |
| 2022-09-15 | Alleged pre-suit notice of patent to Defendant |
| 2022-11-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,633,010 - "TRAILER WITH NO EXTRA HEIGHT WHEN FOLDING"
- Issued: April 28, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art collapsible trailers often suffer from disadvantages such as small carrying capacity or an increase in height and overall volume after being folded, making them inconvenient to store and use (’010 Patent, col. 1:18-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trailer with a specific folding frame structure built around "fixed standpipes." This structure uses a combination of front, rear, side, and bottom folding components, including X-shaped cross pipes and sliding sleeves, that are interconnected in a precise way. This arrangement allows the trailer to collapse horizontally into a compact form without increasing its overall height, thereby solving the problem of a bulky folded state (’010 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:62-68).
- Technical Importance: The design's ability to maintain a constant height while folding achieves a smaller final volume compared to prior art trailers, enhancing its practicality for storage and transportation (’010 Patent, col. 2:62-68).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-10, with a detailed breakdown provided for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A trailer with no extra height when folding, comprising fixed standpipes arranged at a front and rear end of the trailer, and front and rear folding components, side folding components, bottom folding components and handle components connected to the fixed standpipes;
- wherein a top-corner fixed piece is fixed on the fixed standpipes, and slidably connected with a first linkage sliding sleeve;
- the front and rear folding components comprise at least two hinged front and rear X components, formed by two cross pipes crosswise hinged together by an articulated shaft, with the ends of the cross pipes hinged with the top-corner fixed piece or the first linkage sliding sleeve;
- the side folding components comprise two side folding shelves and a folding driving pipe, with a specific arrangement of cross short pipes, cross long pipes, and horizontal connecting pipes;
- the bottom folding components comprise two bottom X components, formed by four bottom connecting pipes hinged with one same bottom connecting piece, and hinged with a second linkage sliding sleeve.
- The complaint reserves the right to amend infringement contentions (Compl. ¶41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "VIVOSUN Heavy Duty Collapsible Folding Wagon Utility Outdoor Camping Garden Cart" ("VIVOSUN Garden Cart") (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a collapsible utility cart sold by VIVOSUN on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 27). The complaint alleges that the product folds horizontally without an increase in height, providing photographic evidence to support this assertion (Compl. ¶42). A key visual in the complaint shows the product measuring 24 inches in height both when opened and when closed. (Compl. p. 7, FIGS. 2A-2B).
- The complaint alleges the VIVOSUN Garden Cart is commercially successful, ranking fourth on Amazon.com's Best Seller list, and that its sales have reduced the market share and impaired the online ranking of Plaintiff's U.S. licensees (Compl. ¶¶ 30-32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,633,010 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A trailer with no extra height when folding, comprising fixed standpipes arranged at a front and rear end of the trailer, and front and rear folding components, side folding components, bottom folding components and handle components connected to the fixed standpipes; | The accused product is a trailer that allegedly folds horizontally without generating extra height. It is alleged to include fixed standpipes at the front and rear, as well as front, rear, side, bottom, and handle folding components connected to the standpipes. The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the product to identify these components. (Compl. p. 8, FIG. 4). | ¶42 | col. 1:35-40 |
| wherein a top-corner fixed piece is fixed on the fixed standpipes, and slidably connected with a first linkage sliding sleeve; the front and rear folding components comprise at least two hinged front and rear X components, the front and rear X components are formed by two cross pipes which are crosswise hinged together by an articulated shaft, the ends of the cross pipes are hinged with the top-corner fixed piece or the first linkage sliding sleeve; | The product is alleged to have a top-corner fixed piece on the fixed standpipes and a first linkage sliding sleeve on the fixed standpipes. It is further alleged to have front and rear pipes forming two X shapes that are hinged together by an articulated shaft, with the ends of these pipes hinged to the top-corner fixed piece and the first linkage sliding sleeve. | ¶43 | col. 3:9-15; col. 3:24-32 |
| wherein the side folding components comprise two side folding shelves and a folding driving pipe, the side folding shelf comprises a side cross short pipe, a side cross long pipe and a horizontal connecting pipe...the bottom folding components comprise two bottom X components, the bottom X components are formed by one end of four bottom connecting pipes being simultaneously hinged with one same bottom connecting piece; the other end of the bottom connecting pipe is hinged with a second linkage sliding sleeve slidably connected with the folding driving pipe or a bottom-corner fixed piece fixedly connected to the fixed standpipes. | The complaint alleges the product includes two side folding shelves separated by a folding driving pipe, with each shelf including a side cross short pipe, a side cross long pipe, and a horizontal connecting pipe. It further alleges the product has bottom X components formed by bottom connecting pipes that are hinged together at a bottom connecting piece, which in turn connects to a second linkage sliding sleeve. The complaint maps these components to labeled product photos. | ¶44 | col. 3:33-41; col. 3:52-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the preamble phrase "with no extra height when folding" constitutes a binding limitation on the claim or is merely an intended result. The complaint treats it as a key feature, but a defendant could argue the specific mechanical elements that follow are the only true limitations.
- Technical Questions: The infringement case rests on an assertion that the accused cart's components are structurally and functionally identical to the specific, complex mechanical linkages recited in Claim 1 (e.g., "folding driving pipe", "first linkage sliding sleeve", "articulated shaft"). The key technical question is whether the VIVOSUN cart's folding mechanism operates in the precise manner described by the claim, or if there are material differences in the construction, connection, and interaction of its parts.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "fixed standpipes"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and is foundational to the claimed structure. The entire folding mechanism is described as being connected to these "fixed standpipes." The definition of "fixed" will be critical for determining the claim's scope, as it dictates the core stable structure from which all other components move.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "two fixed standpipes 1 are respectively arranged at front and rear ends of the trailer" (col. 3:4-5). This language focuses on arrangement and position, which could support an interpretation where "fixed" means stationary relative to the base during the folding operation, rather than requiring a specific method of permanent attachment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as FIG. 1, depict the standpipes (1) as the primary vertical structural members to which wheels and the folding scissor-mechanism are attached. This visual context suggests a rigid, load-bearing, and permanent component of the frame, potentially supporting a narrower construction that excludes less integrated or temporary vertical members.
The Term: "hinged"
- Context and Importance: This term appears repeatedly throughout Claim 1 to describe the connection between various moving parts (e.g., "crosswise hinged together," "ends of the cross pipes are hinged with the top-corner fixed piece"). Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific type of pivotal connection (e.g., a simple pivot, a multi-axis joint) could be a point of dispute. The claim's functionality depends on these specific kinematic relationships.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "hinged," which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning of a joint that allows rotational movement around an axis.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim specifies certain connections are made "by articulated shaft" (col. 6:46), which could imply that where this specific language is not used, a simpler type of hinge is intended. A defendant might argue that if its product uses a more complex joint where the patent claims a simple hinge (or vice-versa), it does not infringe.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's "Nature of the Action" section includes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement (Compl. ¶2) but does not plead specific facts in support, such as identifying instructions in user manuals or advertising that would encourage direct infringement by customers.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that Defendant received actual knowledge of the ’010 patent "at least as of September 15, 2022" through direct communications with the inventor, and again via a notice from Amazon.com on September 22, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 45-46). Continued sales after these dates are alleged to be wanton, malicious, and egregious (Compl. ¶46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: is the preamble phrase "with no extra height when folding" a positive, enforceable limitation of the claim, or is it a non-limiting statement of the invention's intended purpose? The court's decision on this point will significantly shape the scope of the infringement inquiry.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: the complaint relies heavily on visual comparisons between the patent figures and product photos. The case will likely turn on a detailed, technical comparison of whether the accused cart's mechanical components and their specific interconnections (e.g., the "folding driving pipe", "sliding sleeves", and "bottom connecting piece") are the same as, or equivalent to, the precise structures recited in each limitation of Claim 1.