Topeka Tech Inc v. Strict

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Topeka Tech, Inc (California)
  • Defendant: STRICT (Guangzhouyonglinshangmaoyouxiangongsi) (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nguyen & Yip, P.C.
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-02180, C.D. Cal., 08/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: The complaint does not contain explicit allegations regarding venue. The plaintiff is located within the district, and the defendant is a foreign entity.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s handheld massaging devices sold on Amazon.com infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of such devices.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns handheld, non-electronic personal massage tools, a segment of the consumer health and wellness market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the defendant continued selling the accused products after being notified of the plaintiff's patent rights, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D863,587 - “HANDHELD BODY MASSAGING DEVICE”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D863,587, “HANDHELD BODY MASSAGING DEVICE,” issued October 15, 2019 (the “’587 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating a unique and ornamental appearance for a handheld body massaging device.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific visual design for the device. The claimed ornamental features, shown in solid lines, consist of a central body from which two parallel rows of rounded, finger-like projections extend. The central handle or grip area and the rounded end caps are depicted in broken lines, indicating they are not part of the claimed design (’587 Patent, FIG. 1; Description).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic in the consumer marketplace for personal massage tools.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings (’587 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • The overall configuration of a central spine with two opposing rows of massage projections.
  • The specific shape, spacing, and arrangement of the rounded, finger-like projections.
  • The visual relationship between the projections and the unclaimed central body.

U.S. Design Patent No. D981,578 - “HANDHELD BODY MASSAGING DEVICE”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D981,578, “HANDHELD BODY MASSAGING DEVICE,” issued March 21, 2023 (the “’578 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent protects a distinct ornamental design for a handheld body massager, differentiating it visually from other products.
• The Patented Solution: The ’578 Patent claims an ornamental design featuring a flat, elongated handle connected to a series of curved, spring-like arms that terminate in rounded massage tips. The design creates the visual impression of flexibility and targeted pressure application (’578 Patent, FIG. 1). Portions of the handle and the structure of the arms are shown in broken lines, indicating they form the environment for the claimed design but are not part of it (’578 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The claimed aesthetic suggests a different massaging action and user experience compared to more rigid designs.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for the ornamental design as depicted in the patent’s figures (’578 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • The sweeping, curved shape of the massaging arms.
  • The appearance of the arms as coiled or spring-like structures.
  • The arrangement of the rounded massage tips at the end of the arms.
  • The overall visual interplay between the prominent handle and the more delicate massaging elements.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses handheld massaging devices sold by Defendant on Amazon.com, identified by the following ASINs: B0CY5GVLHB, B0CY5GYCQF, B0DK54Q921, B0D4QK6XMM, B0CY5HYVN5, B0CY5G7K6P, B0D4QL4X1Y, and B0D4Q8T8XX (Compl., p. 5).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as "handheld massaging device[s]" that "incorporate features claimed in Plaintiff's Patents" (Compl., p. 5). The complaint does not provide further technical details, screenshots, or descriptions of the accused products' specific designs or functionalities, other than noting their sale on Amazon.com (Compl., p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's products directly infringe the ’587 and ’578 Patents by incorporating the claimed ornamental features (Compl., p. 5). However, it does not provide a detailed element-by-element comparison or claim chart. The infringement analysis for a design patent centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design.

The complaint's allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products, identified only by ASINs, "incorporate features claimed in Plaintiff's Patents" without specifying which products infringe which patent or detailing the visual similarities (Compl., p. 5). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the overall visual appearance of any of the accused products is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’587 Patent and the ’578 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
  • Evidentiary Support: A key issue will be what evidence is introduced to establish the actual ornamental designs of the accused products and compare them to the patent figures, given the lack of such evidence in the initial pleading.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for design patents is atypical, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. The analysis is primarily a visual comparison. The complaint provides no basis for identifying any specific terms whose construction would be central to the dispute. The case will likely proceed directly to a visual infringement analysis under the ordinary observer test.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl., p. 5). No facts are pleaded to support claims for induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendant's actions have been willful, deliberate, and in disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights" (Compl., p. 5). The factual basis for this allegation is the assertion that "Despite Plaintiff's notification of its patent rights, Defendant has continued to sell the infringing products" (Compl., p. 5). This suggests a claim based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Are the ornamental designs of the accused products, once identified and presented as evidence, substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’587 and ’578 Patents from the perspective of an ordinary observer?
• A second key question will be evidentiary: Given the complaint’s lack of visual evidence, what proof will be offered to establish the specific appearance of the accused products and demonstrate the alleged similarity to the patented designs?
• Finally, should infringement be found, a dispositive factual question will be one of scienter: Does the alleged pre-suit "notification" constitute sufficient proof of knowledge to support the claim for willful infringement?