DCT
2:23-cv-02503
Topfire Ltd v. Cook
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Topfire Limited, HK Miuson International Co., Limited, Jianggongxiushenzhenguojimaoyiyouxiangongsi, and Shenzhenshilingbinqipeiyouxiangongsi (Foreign companies)
- Defendant: Benjamin D. Cook (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Inhouse Co. Law Firm
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-02503, E.D. Cal., 10/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of California because the defendant, an individual, is located in Placer County, which falls within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their "Cup Expander Products" do not infringe and that U.S. Patent No. 11,772,539 B2 is invalid, following Defendant’s infringement complaints to Amazon.com.
- Technical Context: The technology involves aftermarket adapters that fit into standard vehicle cupholders to securely accommodate larger beverage containers, a common accessory in the automotive market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that in October 2023, Defendant submitted a "report" to Amazon.com, alleging that Plaintiffs' products infringe the patent-in-suit. This triggered Amazon's process, which threatened to delist Plaintiffs' products unless they participated in Amazon's internal Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program or obtained a court order. This lawsuit appears to be Plaintiffs' response to that threat, seeking a judicial resolution. The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-02-06 | ’539 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-10-03 | ’539 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-10-XX | Defendant allegedly reports infringement to Amazon |
| 2023-10-30 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,772,539 - “Cupholder and Adapter for Large Containers During Vehicle Use”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,772,539, “Cupholder and Adapter for Large Containers During Vehicle Use,” issued October 3, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that cupholders in most motor vehicles are designed for narrow containers like soda cans, while taller or wider containers "either cannot fit at all or fit in a manner wherein the container may tip over or rattle about," leading to potential spillage and danger (Compl. Ex. 1, ’539 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part adapter. An adjustable base with expandable legs secures the device into a vehicle's existing cupholder. Coupled to this base is a larger, cylindrical cupholder designed to hold oversized containers. This upper cupholder contains internal tabs of varying lengths to stabilize containers of different widths and can be mounted off-center from the base to avoid obstructions like a console lid (’539 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-55). The offset capability is achieved via an attachment member with multiple mounting holes (’539 Patent, col. 6:49-54).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a universal, stable solution for using a wide variety of popular large-format beverage containers in vehicles, enhancing convenience and safety (’539 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’539 Patent, with the precipitating infringement report to Amazon asserting Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49; Compl. Ex. 2, p. 42).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A cylindrical cupholder with a hollow internal volume.
- A collar on top with a plurality of tabs extending perpendicularly into the volume.
- An adapter base coupled to the cupholder, which has a plurality of legs that can expand and retract.
- An attachment member on the bottom of the cupholder that enables the coupling to the adapter base.
- The attachment member has multiple mounting holes that align with protrusions on the adapter base (or a spacer), allowing a fastener to secure the assembly.
- The complaint reserves the right to challenge all claims but focuses its narrative on the patent as a whole (Compl. ¶¶85, 94).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are various "Cup Expander Products" sold by the four Plaintiffs on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶30). The complaint identifies these products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) and item titles (Compl. ¶¶26-29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the products through their online retail titles, such as "Upgraded Car Cup Holder Expander Adapter with Offset Adjustable Base" and "Seven Sparta Car Cup Holder Tray, 2 in 1 Car Food Tray Cup Holder Expander Compatible with Yeti, Hydro Flasks..." (Compl. ¶¶26, 28). These titles suggest the products are automotive accessories designed to expand the capacity of a standard car cupholder and include features like an adjustable base and an offset mounting capability. The complaint alleges that the Defendant is a "direct competitor" to the Plaintiffs in this market (Compl. ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, rebutting infringement allegations made by the Defendant to Amazon.com. The complaint itself does not contain a detailed infringement or non-infringement analysis. The following chart summarizes the likely infringement theory that Plaintiffs are contesting, based on the language of Claim 1 and the descriptions of the accused products provided in the complaint.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'539 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cylindrical cupholder having a hollow internal volume; | The accused products are identified as "Cup Expander Product[s]" and "Cup Holder Expander[s]." | ¶¶26, 30 | col. 7:38-39 |
| a collar attached to a top portion of the cylindrical cupholder, wherein the collar includes a plurality of tabs extending perpendicularly into the hollow internal volume; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 7:40-43 |
| an adapter base coupled to the cylindrical cupholder, wherein the adapter base includes a plurality of legs configured to expand and retract... | Accused products are described as having an "Adjustable Base" or "Expandable Base." | ¶¶26, 29 | col. 8:1-5 |
| an attachment member positioned on a bottom surface of the cylindrical cupholder, wherein the attachment member enables the coupling of the adapter base and the cylindrical cupholder; | The accused products are identified as "Cup Holder Expander Adapter[s]," which suggests a coupling between a cupholder part and an adapter base part. | ¶26 | col. 8:6-10 |
| wherein the attachment member comprises a number of mounting holes and the adapter base or a spacer comprises a number of protrusions...wherein a mounting hole...is configured to align with the hole such that a fastener can extend through... | Accused products are described as having an "Offset Adjustable Base," which suggests a mechanism with multiple mounting configurations. | ¶¶26, 29 | col. 8:11-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the features of the accused products fall within the scope of the patent's claims. For example, does the mechanism providing the "Offset Adjustable Base" in the accused products meet the specific "attachment member," "mounting holes," and "protrusions" limitations of Claim 1?
- Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will likely concern the "plurality of tabs extending perpendicularly" limitation. The complaint provides no information on whether the accused products contain this feature, how it is structured, or if it functions in the manner described in the patent. Evidence on the specific design of the accused products' container-stabilizing mechanism will be critical.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "tabs extending perpendicularly into the hollow internal volume"
Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural element for stabilizing beverage containers. The precise meaning of "tabs" and the functional requirement that they "extend perpendicularly" will be critical to the infringement analysis, as a different stabilizing mechanism (e.g., flexible fins, an iris diaphragm) in the accused products could support a non-infringement argument.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the tabs can be made of a "thin, flexible material, such that they may bend fairly easily when a bottle is inserted" and can be constructed of "rubber" (’539 Patent, col. 4:51-54). This could support construing the term to cover a range of flexible, inwardly-projecting structures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the invention from prior art by stating that its tabs are "configured to remain unbent and remain perpendicular to the side of the container during use" to provide "significantly more support" (’539 Patent, col. 4:60-63). This language may be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires the tabs to maintain their perpendicular orientation under load to meet the claim.
The Term: "attachment member"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because Claim 1 recites it as a distinct element with specific features ("mounting holes") that enables coupling and offset positioning. Whether the accused products contain a separate, identifiable "attachment member" or use an integrated design for coupling the base and cupholder will be a key point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims broadly recite it as being "positioned on a bottom surface of the cylindrical cupholder" and enabling "the coupling of the adapter base and the cylindrical cupholder" (’539 Patent, col. 8:6-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures describe and show a discrete component (110) on the bottom of the cupholder with multiple mounting holes (111) that is distinct from the main cupholder body (’539 Patent, FIG. 8; col. 6:49-54). This could support a narrower construction requiring a structurally separate component.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Not applicable. The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain allegations of indirect infringement by the Plaintiffs.
- Willful Infringement: Not applicable. The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement. The complaint does allege that the Defendant acted with "malice" and in "bad faith" in making "false statements" to Amazon, but these allegations relate to Plaintiffs' non-patent claims for trade libel and tortious interference, not to a claim for willful patent infringement (Compl. ¶¶63, 69, 78).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on the classic patent litigation questions of claim scope and validity. The key issues for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of structural infringement: do the accused "Cup Expander Products," particularly their "Offset Adjustable Base" and any internal stabilizing structures, contain the specific elements recited in Claim 1, such as a distinct "attachment member" with "mounting holes" and "tabs extending perpendicularly"? The lack of technical detail in the complaint makes this a primary evidentiary hurdle.
- A second key issue will be one of validity: Plaintiffs have asserted that the ’539 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Compl. ¶¶85-88). The case may therefore turn on whether combining features from the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention—an adjustable-base cupholder adapter with an offset capability and specific internal tabs—would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art.