DCT

8:22-cv-01295

With U E Commerce Shanghai Co Ltd v. Global Shade Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:22-cv-01295, C.D. Cal., 07/12/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Global Shade Corporation’s principal place of business, Defendant Jian He’s residence, and the substantial business and established place of business of the Walmart Defendants within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Eagle Peak" brand of pop-up canopies infringes a utility patent related to a central locking mechanism for single-person setup and a design patent for the ornamental appearance of a canopy center top cap and pole.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns collapsible outdoor canopies, specifically improvements to the frame-locking mechanism to simplify and expedite setup.
  • Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent No. 10,669,738 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2023-00580). An IPR certificate indicates that Claim 1, the only independent claim asserted in this complaint, has been cancelled. This event may render the infringement cause of action for this patent moot.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-07-26 Earliest Priority Date for '738 and '910 Patents
2020-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,669,738 Issued
2021-08-03 U.S. Patent No. D926,910 Issued
2022-07-12 Complaint Filed
2023-02-09 IPR2023-00580 Filed Against '738 Patent
2024-11-08 IPR Certificate Issued for '738 Patent (Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 cancelled)

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,669,738 - Collapsible Canopy Frame Having a Central Lock (Issued Jun. 2, 2020)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional collapsible canopies as cumbersome, often requiring multiple people to erect. The process of individually locking each support leg is inefficient, can create uneven stress on the frame, and weakens the legs at the location of the locking pin holes, shortening the product's service life ('738 Patent, col. 1:26-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a central locking mechanism that allows a single user to lock the entire canopy frame in an unfolded state simultaneously. This is achieved through a "central lock" assembly, consisting of a center pole, a top cap, and a bottom cap, which a user can push upwards to engage and lock the frame's roof structure ('738 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-63). This design aims to simplify setup and improve the frame's structural stability ('738 Patent, col. 4:46-59).
  • Technical Importance: This central lock approach streamlines the setup process and removes the need for locking mechanisms and structural weaknesses (pin holes) on each individual support leg ('738 Patent, col. 4:53-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • At least three supporting legs.
    • A plurality of outer retractable units connecting adjacent supporting legs, comprising hinged X-shaped rod members.
    • A plurality of inner retractable units connected to the supporting legs to form a roof.
    • A central lock, comprising a center top cap, a center bottom cap, and a center pole, which locks the canopy frame when the pole is connected to both caps and unlocks it upon disconnection, with the inner ends of the inner retractable units being "connected through said central lock."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. D926,910 - Canopy Center Top Cap and Pole Combination (Issued Aug. 3, 2021)

Technology Synopsis

This design patent claims the unique ornamental, non-functional appearance of a "canopy center top cap and pole combination" ('910 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a specific visual configuration of a top cap, where the canopy's roof arms would connect, and the pole extending downwards from it ('910 Patent, Figs. 1-6). The legal test for infringement 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 (Compl. ¶32).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of the patent's single claim (Compl. ¶33).

Accused Features

The "canopy center top cap and pole combination" of the Defendants' "Eagle Peak" canopies are accused of infringing the patented design (Compl. ¶¶14, 33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a series of "Eagle Peak" brand pop-up canopies, including the "EAGLE PEAK One Person Setup 10'x10' Straight Leg Pop Up Canopy" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are marketed as featuring "Easy Peak One Person Setup Technology" (Compl. ¶15). This technology is alleged to allow a single user to "easily open and close the canopy from the center" by pushing up on a central pole and hub mechanism, thereby avoiding the "hassle of locking and unlocking the canopy leg sliders" (Compl. p. 7). A marketing image in the complaint illustrates this feature, showing a user pushing upwards on a central hub to erect the canopy. (Compl. ¶10, p.4). The complaint alleges these products are sold on Walmart.com and Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'738 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A. at least three supporting legs, The accused canopy has three or more legs, as shown in product photographs. ¶21, p.9 col. 10:8
B. a plurality of outer retractable units, each outer retractable unit connected between two adjacent supporting legs, each said outer retractable unit comprises a plurality of hinged X-shaped rod members, each X-shaped rod member comprises a first eave pipe and second eave pipe hinged to one another, The accused canopy has outer retractable units between adjacent legs, which are comprised of hinged X-shaped members. ¶21, pp.9-10 col. 10:9-14
C. a plurality of inner retractable units comprising inner ends, each inner retractable unit connected to a supporting leg, wherein said outer retractable units and said inner retractable units form a roof of said collapsible canopy frame, The accused canopy has inner retractable units connected to each supporting leg that form a roof structure with the outer units. ¶21, p.10 col. 10:15-20
D. a central lock, comprising: 1. a center top cap, 2. a center bottom cap, 3. a center pole positioned between said center top cap and said center bottom cap, wherein said central lock is locked when said center pole is connected to both said center top cap and said center bottom cap... wherein said inner ends of said inner retractable units are connected through said central lock. The Accused Products allegedly have a central lock with a top cap, bottom cap, and center pole. The complaint provides images showing these individual components on the accused product. (Compl. p.11-12). ¶21, pp.11-12 col. 10:21-36

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question would concern the definition of "central lock." The patent discloses a specific mechanism involving a radially moving locking piece engaging a groove on the center pole ('738 Patent, col. 3:40-54). The complaint relies on high-level marketing images, raising the question of whether the accused product's internal "Center-Push" system operates in the specific manner required by the claim's limitations.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the "inner ends" of the inner retractable units to be "connected through said central lock." The evidence provided does not detail the precise connection points of the accused product's internal roof structure to its central hub. A key factual dispute would likely be whether the accused product meets this specific structural limitation. The complaint presents an image of the center pole being operated, which is alleged to show infringement of the design patent. (Compl. ¶33, p.14).

'910 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the ornamental design of the accused products' "center top cap and pole combination" is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '910 patent (Compl. ¶32). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison, placing a drawing from the '910 patent next to a photograph of the accused product's central hub being operated (Compl. ¶33, p.14).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute will focus on the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused hub assembly is substantially the same as the patented design. Defendants may argue that visual differences in proportion, curvature, or surface features between the accused product and the patent drawings are significant enough to avoid a finding of infringement.
  • Technical Questions: A potential defense could be that certain aspects of the design are dictated by their function (e.g., the shape of the connection points for the canopy arms) and should therefore be given less weight in the infringement analysis for a design patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"central lock"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the '738 patent's asserted claim. The entire infringement theory for this patent hinges on whether the accused "Center-Push" system falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and a plaintiff might argue it should encompass any centrally-located mechanism that locks the canopy frame.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the "central lock" includes a "locking piece" that moves radially to engage a "clamping groove" on the center pole ('738 Patent, col. 3:40-54, Fig. 6). Claim 1 itself recites a "center top cap," "center bottom cap," and "center pole." A defendant would argue the term is limited to this specific multi-component structure and its disclosed method of operation.

"connected through said central lock"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the structural relationship between the roof frame and the locking mechanism. A mismatch in this connection could be a basis for non-infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff could argue this means the connection is simply effectuated by means of the central lock assembly, without requiring a specific path or set of connection points.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures show the inner roof arms connecting to both the top cap and the bottom cap of the central lock assembly ('738 Patent, Fig. 18). A defendant could argue that "through" requires this specific structural arrangement where the inner units connect to distinct parts of the lock assembly, rather than to a single point.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing customers with products and instruction manuals that direct them to use the canopies in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶20, 32).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of both the '738 and '910 patents and therefore engaged in willful infringement, but does not provide specific facts supporting when or how this knowledge was obtained (Compl. ¶¶23, 35).

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

  1. Procedural Impact: A threshold question for the court will be the effect of the IPR proceeding on the first cause of action. Given that asserted Claim 1 of the '738 patent has been cancelled, the court will need to determine if this claim for relief is now moot and should be dismissed.

  2. Design Infringement Scope: For the remaining '910 design patent claim, the case will likely turn on a question of visual similarity. The core issue will be whether an ordinary observer would find the overall ornamental appearance of the accused "Eagle Peak" central hub assembly to be substantially the same as the patented design, or if the visual differences are sufficient to distinguish them.

  3. Willfulness and Damages: Should any infringement be found, a key factual question will be one of knowledge and intent. The court will need to assess what evidence, if any, supports the plaintiff's allegation that the defendants knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit, which would be critical for the claims of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.