DCT
8:22-cv-01037
Arovast Corp v. Okaysou Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Arovast Corporation (California) and Etekcity Corporation (Iowa)
- Defendant: Okaysou Corporation (California), Hao Ma (individual), and Yan Huang (individual)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Trojan Law Offices
- Case Identification: 8:22-cv-01037, C.D. Cal., 05/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants' alleged commission of infringing acts within the district and the court's personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that two of Defendant Okaysou's air purifier models infringe two of Plaintiffs' design patents covering the ornamental appearance of air purifiers.
- Technical Context: The dispute is set in the competitive consumer appliance market, where the ornamental design of a product like an air purifier can be a key market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Etekcity is the owner of the patents-in-suit and has granted an exclusive license to Plaintiff Arovast. The complaint alleges that Defendants had "actual notice" of the asserted patents prior to the suit, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-06-04 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D942,604 |
| 2020-03-20 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D936,200 |
| 2021-11-16 | U.S. Patent No. D936,200 Issued |
| 2022-02-01 | U.S. Patent No. D942,604 Issued |
| 2022-05-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D942604 - "Air Purifier," issued February 1, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution; instead, they protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D'604 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an air purifier, which is depicted in its figures (D'604 Patent, FIG. 1-8). The design features a generally cylindrical body divided into two distinct sections: a lower portion comprising a grille with a dense pattern of circular perforations, and a solid, unadorned upper portion. A key feature is the top surface, which consists of a circular air outlet with a grille of swirling, fin-like elements directed toward a central, solid circle (D'604 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 6).
- Technical Importance: The patent protects a specific aesthetic identity for an air purifier, an article of manufacture where unique visual design can be a significant factor in consumer choice.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for an air purifier, as shown and described" (D'604 Patent, Claim).
- The protected design consists of the specific visual characteristics embodied in the drawings, including:
- A generally cylindrical overall shape.
- A lower body section featuring a perforated grille pattern.
- A smooth, solid upper body section.
- A top surface featuring a circular grille with radially arranged, swirling fins.
- The specific proportions and contours of these elements as depicted in the patent figures.
U.S. Patent No. D936200 - "Air Purifier," issued November 16, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an air purifier (D'200 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a different air purifier model (D'200 Patent, FIG. 1-8). This design has a rectangular body with rounded vertical edges. The top surface features a primary grille of parallel slats alongside an offset, indented, smooth area, presumably for controls (D'200 Patent, FIG. 6). Another claimed feature is a recessed, vertical handle integrated into the side of the unit (D'200 Patent, FIG. 4, FIG. 5). The patent uses broken lines to disclaim certain features, meaning they are not part of the protected design (D'200 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: This patent, like the ’604 Patent, seeks to protect a distinct visual identity for a consumer product in a competitive field.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for an air purifier, as shown and described" (D'200 Patent, Claim).
- The essential ornamental features shown in the solid lines of the drawings include:
- A generally rectangular body with rounded vertical edges.
- A top surface containing a grille of parallel slats.
- An indented, smooth area on the top surface, offset from the main grille.
- A recessed, vertical handle feature on the side of the body.
- The specific proportions and contours of these elements as depicted in the patent figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the "Cayman 608 air purifier" as infringing the ’604 Patent and the "Apollo 718 air purifier" as infringing the ’200 Patent (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint identifies the accused products as air purifiers manufactured, imported, distributed, and sold by Defendant Okaysou (Compl. ¶5, ¶6). The core of the infringement allegation rests on the ornamental appearance of the products. The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison of the Cayman 608 against the patented design and Plaintiffs' commercial embodiment (Compl. p. 6). This image shows the Cayman 608 as a cylindrical air purifier with a perforated lower body and a solid upper body. A similar visual comparison is provided for the Apollo 718, showing it to be a rectangular air purifier with rounded corners and a top-mounted grille and control interface (Compl. p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that an ordinary observer would find the accused products to be substantially the same as the patented designs (Compl. ¶18, ¶26).
’604 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from design shown in figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Okaysou Cayman 608) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A generally cylindrical body with a distinct lower perforated section and a solid upper section. | The accused Cayman 608 product features a cylindrical body with a perforated lower section and a solid upper section. | ¶18; p. 6 | ’604 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| A top surface with a circular air outlet grille. | The accused Cayman 608 product features a circular air outlet grille on its top surface. | ¶18; p. 6 | ’604 Patent, FIG. 6 |
| The overall visual impression created by the combination of shape, proportions, and surface ornamentation. | The complaint alleges the overall appearance of the Cayman 608 is "substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶18 | ’604 Patent, FIG. 1-8 |
’200 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from design shown in figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Okaysou Apollo 718) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A generally rectangular body with rounded vertical edges. | The accused Apollo 718 product features a rectangular body with rounded vertical edges. | ¶26; p. 9 | ’200 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| A top surface featuring a grille and an adjacent control area. | The accused Apollo 718 product features a top surface with a grille and an adjacent control interface. | ¶26; p. 9 | ’200 Patent, FIG. 6 |
| A vertical, recessed feature on the side of the body. | The accused Apollo 718 product features a vertical, recessed handle on its side. | ¶26; p. 9 | ’200 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| The overall visual impression created by the combination of shape, proportions, and surface ornamentation. | The complaint alleges the overall appearance of the Apollo 718 is "substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶26 | ’200 Patent, FIG. 1-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central issue for both patents will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will focus on whether differences in specific features—such as the precise pattern of the top grille on the Cayman 608 or the shape of the control interface on the Apollo 718—are sufficient to create a different overall appearance. The presence of the "okaysou" brand name on the accused products, versus "lěvoit" on Plaintiffs' products, may also be a factor in the analysis (Compl. p. 6, p. 9).
- Technical Questions: The dispute does not raise technical questions of operation, but rather questions of visual comparison. The court will need to compare the designs as a whole. A key question is what visual weight an ordinary observer would give to the similarities (e.g., overall form factor) versus the differences (e.g., specific grille patterns, branding, control button shape).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the "claim" is the visual design depicted in the patent's figures, and traditional claim construction of written terms is not a central issue. The analysis focuses on a comparison of the overall ornamental designs. However, the visual scope of certain features will be points of contention.
- The Term: The overall ornamental design of the "top surface" of each air purifier.
- Context and Importance: The top surface is a prominent feature of both designs and a key point of user interaction. Differences in this area may substantially affect the overall visual impression.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for infringement may contend that the claim covers the general concept of a cylindrical purifier with a top circular grille (’604 Patent) or a rectangular purifier with a top slatted grille and control area (’200 Patent), and that minor variations in the specific execution of those features do not change the substantially similar overall appearance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party defending against infringement may argue that the specific patterns shown in the figures are integral to the patented design. For the ’604 patent, this would be the "swirling, fin-like elements" (D'604 Patent, FIG. 6). For the ’200 patent, this would be the specific arrangement of parallel slats next to an "indented, smooth area" (D'200 Patent, FIG. 6). Any deviation from these specific depictions, it may be argued, creates a different design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "aid and abet" infringement and that individual defendants Hao Ma and Yan Huang "actively and knowingly aided and abetted the infringement," resulting in personal liability (Compl. ¶8, ¶10, ¶16). These allegations support a claim for induced infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had "actual notice of Plaintiffs' patent rights" and continued their infringing activities "without justification" (Compl. ¶21, ¶29). This alleged pre-suit knowledge is the stated basis for the willfulness claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Overall Visual Impression: Will an ordinary observer, giving the attention a typical purchaser does, find the overall visual appearances of the accused Okaysou Cayman 608 and Apollo 718 purifiers to be substantially the same as the patented designs, or are the observable differences in branding, grille patterns, and control interfaces sufficient to create distinct visual impressions?
- Impact of Prior Art: The infringement test for design patents is conducted in view of the prior art. The complaint does not detail the relevant prior art. A critical question for the court will be the scope of the patented designs. If the field of air purifier design is crowded, the scope of protection afforded to the patents may be narrow, making even small differences in the accused products more significant.
- Individual Liability: Does the complaint allege sufficient specific facts to support the claim that the corporate officers, Hao Ma and Yan Huang, personally directed or controlled the allegedly infringing conduct with the requisite knowledge and intent to be held personally liable for the corporation's infringement?