DCT
5:25-cv-00607
Dongguan Qunan Technology Co Ltd v. Uc Global Trade Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dongguan Qunan Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: UC Global Trade Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Martin J. Foley, a PLC; Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC
- Case Identification: Dongguan Qunan Technology Co., Ltd. v. UC Global Trade Inc., C.D. Cal., 03/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant, UC Global Trade Inc., is a California corporation that resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a manufacturer, seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe Defendant's patent and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following Defendant's assertion of the patent against one of Plaintiff's retailers on Amazon.com.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technology of personal massagers, specifically devices that employ a "tapping" or percussive mechanism for stimulation.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by an intellectual property infringement claim filed by Defendant UC Global under Amazon.com's reporting procedures against a retailer of Plaintiff Qunan's products. The complaint contains significant allegations that the patent-in-suit was obtained by misappropriating Qunan's pre-existing product design and technology, forming the basis for claims of invalidity, improper inventorship, and inequitable conduct.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-05-24 | Qunan alleges its design modeling for the Accused Vibrator was completed. |
| 2022-06 | Qunan alleges it applied for a Chinese design patent on the Accused Vibrator. |
| 2022-07 | Qunan alleges it began offering the Accused Vibrator for sale. |
| 2022-08-24 | Qunan alleges it began selling the Accused Vibrator on the Tmall retail platform. |
| 2022-09-14 | Qunan alleges it began selling the Accused Vibrator on the JD.com retail platform. |
| 2022-10-12 | A third-party distributor allegedly began selling the Accused Vibrator on AliExpress. |
| 2022-11-10 | '295 Patent Priority Date (based on Chinese application CN202211404960.5). |
| 2024-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 12,023,295 issues. |
| 2024-11-10 | UC Global allegedly filed a patent infringement claim on Amazon.com against a Qunan retailer. |
| 2025-03-07 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,023,295 - "Contact-Type Massage Tapping Device and Massager"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,023,295, “Contact-Type Massage Tapping Device and Massager,” issued July 2, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a deficiency in existing tapping-type massagers, noting that their tapping intensity is often insufficient, particularly for in-body massagers or when applied with force, and that the vibration is often undifferentiated across the device (ʼ295 Patent, col. 1:35-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device where the core functional component—a "tapping body"—is housed within an outer "cavity." This tapping body is connected to a driving assembly that causes it to swing with a defined degree of freedom, allowing it to protrude from openings in the cavity to deliver a focused tapping motion to a user ('295 Patent, col. 4:41-61). This design intends to isolate the tapping action from the main casing, creating a more powerful and localized effect ('295 Patent, col. 3:60-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide a more potent and targeted stimulation effect compared to conventional vibrating massagers by creating an independent, inertial tapping mechanism within the device's main structure ('295 Patent, col. 3:44-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being at issue (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A main body of a massage device.
- A cavity within the main body having first and second opposite openings on its outside surface.
- A "tapping body" with a driving end, a connecting seat, and a "tapping driving assembly."
- The tapping body is movably connected to the connecting seat, allowing a "reciprocating swinging degree of freedom."
- The tapping driving assembly provides power to move the tapping body.
- Crucially, "the main body of the contact-type massage tapping device is disposed inside the cavity."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to address dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement for "any claim" of the '295 Patent (Compl. ¶55).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "certain Qunan vibrator products" sold on Amazon.com by a retailer, JuDe Tech, as the "Accused Vibrators" (Compl. ¶6). A specific product is identified by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) B0BYDDP4HJ (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint asserts that Qunan designed, manufactured, and began selling the Accused Vibrators publicly on multiple online retail platforms in China as early as August 2022, prior to the patent's priority date (Compl. ¶¶ 31-38). The complaint alleges that the Accused Vibrator embodies a design for which Qunan itself sought and obtained Chinese and U.S. design patents (Compl. ¶¶ 33-35). The product is sold through retailers on major platforms like Amazon.com, which is described as a "primary sales channel" (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The central basis for this request is Qunan's assertion that its products do not practice a key limitation of the patent’s claims (Compl. ¶25). The complaint provides a hyperlink to a webpage on AliExpress asserted to illustrate details regarding the operation of the Accused Vibrator (Compl. ¶42).
'295 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a contact-type massage tapping device, comprising: a main body... and a cavity having a first opening... and a second opening... | The complaint's theory of invalidity-by-anticipation suggests that the Accused Vibrator embodies most elements of the claim if construed broadly (Compl. ¶49). | ¶49 | col. 11:3-15 |
| wherein the main body of the contact-type massage tapping device comprises: a tapping body..., a connecting seat..., and a tapping driving assembly... | The complaint's theory of invalidity-by-anticipation suggests that the Accused Vibrator embodies most elements of the claim if construed broadly (Compl. ¶49). | ¶49 | col. 11:16-29 |
| the main body of the contact-type massage tapping device is disposed inside the cavity | The complaint explicitly alleges that Qunan's products "do not practice a main body of the contact-type massage tapping device being disposed inside a cavity, as that limitation is properly construed." | ¶25 | col. 11:30-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute will be the interpretation of the phrase "the main body of the contact-type massage tapping device is disposed inside the cavity." Qunan's non-infringement defense hinges on a construction of this term that does not read on its product design (Compl. ¶25).
- Technical Questions: The case raises the factual question of whether Qunan's product architecture includes a distinct "main body" of the tapping mechanism that is functionally and structurally "disposed inside" an outer cavity, as depicted in the patent's figures (e.g., '295 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 6), or if its design is materially different.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "main body of the contact-type massage tapping device is disposed inside the cavity"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this limitation is dispositive for both non-infringement and invalidity. Qunan alleges non-infringement based on this element (Compl. ¶25). Concurrently, Qunan argues that if this term is construed broadly enough to cover its product, then that same product serves as invalidating prior art under the on-sale bar (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition appears to be the lynchpin of the entire dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the function of the cavity as isolating the tapping body from the massager's main casing to reduce unnecessary vibrations ('295 Patent, col. 3:60-65). A party could argue this functional description supports a broader reading that covers any design achieving this isolation, regardless of the specific physical structure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the "main body of the... tapping device" to be inside the cavity. The patent figures consistently depict a distinct internal mechanism (tapping body 2, connecting seat 6, driving assembly 5) housed within an outer shell that forms the cavity (1) ('295 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3, 6). A party could argue these embodiments define the claim term as requiring two distinct structural components: an inner "main body" of the mechanism and a separate outer "cavity."
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint contains several counts beyond non-infringement, centered on allegations of misappropriation and deceit.
- Invalidity: Qunan seeks a declaration of invalidity on multiple grounds. The primary assertion is that the Accused Vibrator itself constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102's on-sale bar, as it was allegedly offered for sale and sold to the public more than one year before the patent's effective filing date (Compl. ¶¶ 28-30, 49). The complaint also alleges invalidity under § 102 and § 103 based on other prior art references, and for failure to meet the requirements of § 112 (Compl. ¶¶ 50-51).
- Improper Inventorship and Inequitable Conduct: The complaint makes detailed factual allegations that the named inventor on the '295 Patent, Junjun Chen, and the original applicant, Jiaxintong, did not invent the claimed technology but instead derived it from a sample of Qunan's Accused Vibrator (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 44-45, 60). Qunan alleges that the applicant intentionally excluded the true inventors from the patent application with deceptive intent, constituting improper inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 115 and inequitable conduct that renders the entire patent unenforceable (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 66-68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and infringement: How will the court define the requirement that "the main body of the contact-type massage tapping device is disposed inside the cavity"? The outcome of the non-infringement analysis depends almost entirely on the scope afforded to this limitation.
- The case also presents a critical factual and equitable question: Can Qunan prove its detailed narrative of prior invention, public sale, and subsequent misappropriation by the patent's original applicant? If Qunan's allegations regarding the timeline and derivation of the invention are substantiated, it could lead to the patent being invalidated under the on-sale bar or deemed unenforceable for improper inventorship and inequitable conduct, irrespective of the infringement analysis.