5:23-cv-02410
Shenzhen Deweili Technology Co Ltd v. AlorAir Solutions Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Deweili Technology Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: AlorAir Solutions, Inc. (California); Abestorm; BaseAire; Argendon; AlorTec
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: RENNER OTTO
- Case Identification: 5:23-cv-02410, C.D. Cal., 11/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, reside in the district, and have a regular and established place of business within the district where acts of infringement have allegedly occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ lines of dehumidifiers, ventilators, and wood dust collectors infringe the ornamental designs protected by three of Plaintiff's U.S. design patents.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental appearance of air treatment and filtration appliances, a market where product aesthetics can be a significant factor in consumer choice for both residential and commercial applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings (e.g., IPRs) related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-10-28 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent D981,670 |
| 2022-11-09 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent D997,333 |
| 2023-01-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent D1,001,256 |
| 2023-03-21 | U.S. Patent D981670 Issued |
| 2023-08-29 | U.S. Patent D997333 Issued |
| 2023-10-10 | U.S. Patent D1,001,256 Issued |
| 2023-11-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D981,670 - "Wood Dust Collector", issued March 21, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; they protect aesthetics. The patent addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a wood dust collector (D’670 Patent, Claim, col. 1:47-49).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the dust collector. The claimed design consists of a generally rectangular housing with features for suspended mounting. Its most prominent ornamental features are the identical lattice grilles on the front and rear faces, each composed of a repeating diamond pattern (D’670 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The hanging hardware and power cord are depicted in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the claimed design (D’670 Patent, Description, col. 1:57-64).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic identity for an overhead air filtration unit used in environments such as workshops.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a wood dust collector, as shown and described." (D’670 Patent, col. 1:47-49).
- The core ornamental elements of the design include:
- A box-like, horizontally-oriented rectangular housing.
- A front-facing grille with a diamond-patterned lattice.
- A rear-facing grille with a matching diamond-patterned lattice.
- The overall proportions and surface configuration as depicted in the patent figures.
U.S. Design Patent No. D997,333 - "Ventilator", issued August 29, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent provides a new, original, and ornamental design for a ventilator, distinct from prior art designs (D’333 Patent, Claim, col. 1:50-52).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design of a ventilator. The design is characterized by a flat, square front mounting plate with a central, circular opening covered by a grille. The grille itself has a distinct pattern of interlocking bars. A cylindrical fan housing protrudes from the rear of the mounting plate (D’333 Patent, Figs. 1-2, 4). The power cord is disclaimed via broken lines (D’333 Patent, Description, col. 1:62-65).
- Technical Importance: The design creates a specific visual appearance for a crawlspace or foundation ventilator, combining a simple mounting plate with a detailed central fan grille.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a ventilator, as shown and described." (D’333 Patent, col. 1:50-52).
- The core ornamental elements of the design include:
- A flat, square mounting plate.
- A central circular fan grille with a pattern of intersecting rectangular bars.
- A cylindrical housing assembly extending from the rear of the plate.
- The relative proportions and arrangement of the plate, grille, and housing.
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,001,256 - "Dehumidifier", issued October 10, 2023.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design for a dehumidifier. The design features a compact, rectangular housing with a distinct recessed carrying handle on top, a textured grille pattern on one side face, and a specific arrangement of a control panel, feet, and ports as depicted in the patent figures (D’256 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
- Asserted Claims: The patent’s single claim is for "The ornamental design for a dehumidifier, as shown and described." (D’256 Patent, col. 1:58-60).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of dehumidifiers sold by Defendants, such as the AlorAir Sentinal HD35P, infringes the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 20). The image of the accused AlorAir Sentinal HD35P shows a dehumidifier with a rectangular body, top handle, and side grille (Compl. ¶15, p. 6).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies three categories of accused products sold under various brand names allegedly controlled by Defendant AlorAir Solutions, Inc.:
- Wood Dust Collectors: Models include AlorAir Purecare 1350IG and Abestorm DecDust 1350/1350IG (Compl. ¶17).
- Ventilators: Models include AlorAir VentirPro 260/260S and Abestorm NeatyFresh 260/260S (Compl. ¶16).
- Dehumidifiers: Models include AlorAir Sentinal HD35P, Abestorm SN35P, and Baseaire AirWerx 35P (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are identified as air treatment and filtration appliances. The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale and sold throughout the United States on platforms including amazon.com and Defendants' own branded websites (Compl. ¶¶ 14-17). The complaint provides images of the accused products in tabular format, juxtaposing them by brand and model (Compl. ¶¶ 15-17). For example, an image of the accused Abestorm DecDust 1350 shows a hanging air filtration unit with a diamond-patterned grille (Compl. ¶17, p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The analysis focuses on the overall ornamental appearance, not on a list of functional elements.
D’670 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from D'670 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Complaint Images) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A suspended, horizontally-oriented rectangular housing for a dust collector. | The accused AlorAir Purecare 1350IG and Abestorm DecDust 1350 products feature a suspended, horizontally-oriented rectangular housing. | ¶17, p. 10 | col. 1:47-49 |
| Front and rear faces featuring grilles with a repeating diamond-patterned lattice. | The accused products are depicted with front and/or rear grilles featuring a repeating diamond-patterned lattice. An image of the Abestorm DecDust 1350IG prominently displays this feature. | ¶17, p. 10 | col. 1:47-49 |
| Specific overall proportions and configuration of the housing and grilles. | The overall shape, proportions, and configuration of the accused dust collectors are alleged to create a visual impression that is the same as the patented design. | ¶¶ 17, 32 | col. 1:47-49 |
D’333 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from D'333 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Complaint Images) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A flat, square front mounting plate. | The accused AlorAir VentirPro 260S and Abestorm NeatyFresh 260S ventilators are shown with a flat, square front mounting plate. | ¶16, p. 9 | col. 1:50-52 |
| A central circular grille with a pattern of interlocking rectangular bars. | The accused products feature a central circular fan grille. The image of the AlorAir VentirPro 260S shows a grille with a similar visual effect. | ¶16, p. 9 | col. 1:50-52 |
| A cylindrical fan and motor housing extending from the rear of the mounting plate. | The accused ventilators are alleged to have a rear housing assembly that, in combination with the other features, is substantially the same as the patented design. | ¶¶ 16, 26 | col. 1:50-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: For a design patent, the primary question is the scope of the claimed design in light of the prior art. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented designs.
- Technical Questions: The dispute is not technical, but visual. A key question will be whether minor differences in proportions, control panel design, or surface texture between the patented designs and the accused products are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression for the ordinary observer. For example, the complaint shows different control panel layouts on the various accused dust collectors, raising the question of whether these differences are visually significant (Compl. ¶17, p. 10).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is construed by describing the ornamental features depicted in the patent's figures. The court does not construe textual terms in the same way as in utility patent cases. The following visual features may be central to the dispute.
The Term: The "diamond-patterned lattice" (D’670 Patent).
Context and Importance: This lattice is the most prominent and distinctive feature of the D’670 design. The degree of similarity required for this pattern to be considered the same as the patented version will be a central issue for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the claim covers any grille on a similar housing that uses a repeating diamond or cross-hatch pattern creating the same overall visual effect, regardless of the exact number of diamonds or thickness of the bars.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the design is limited to the precise number, aspect ratio, and beveled edges of the diamond apertures as explicitly shown in Figures 1 and 3 of the ’670 patent.
The Term: The "overall visual appearance" of the ventilator (D’333 Patent).
Context and Importance: Because the ventilator design combines several simple geometric shapes (square plate, circular grille, cylindrical housing), the infringement analysis will depend on the holistic impression created by their combination and proportions, rather than any single feature.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The design may be argued to cover a general arrangement of a square mounting plate with a central circular fan, where the specific grille pattern is just one embodiment of that broader look.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The design may be limited to the exact proportions of the plate-to-grille-to-housing shown in the patent figures, including the specific pattern of the interlocking bars in the grille (D’333 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 10, 11).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement (i.e., induced or contributory infringement).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead willful infringement or allege facts that would typically support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The allegations that Defendants "intend to continue" their infringing acts primarily support the request for injunctive relief (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 28, 34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The Ordinary Observer Test: The central issue for all three asserted design patents will be a factual one: would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art for air treatment devices, find the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products to be substantially the same as the patented designs? The outcome will depend on a visual, side-by-side comparison and arguments over whether differences are trivial or substantial enough to alter the overall aesthetic impression.
Role of Prior Art: The scope of protection afforded to each design patent will be determined by the context of the prior art. A key question will be whether the relevant design space is crowded with similar-looking products. If so, the scope of the patents may be construed narrowly, and even small differences between the patented and accused designs could be sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement.
Defendant Liability: A potential preliminary issue is one of corporate structure. The complaint alleges that multiple brand names (Abestorm, BaseAire, etc.) are aliases or divisions of a single corporate entity, AlorAir Solutions, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-8). Should Defendants contest this, Plaintiff will bear the burden of proving that these are not legally distinct entities and that AlorAir is the proper party responsible for all accused sales.