Shenzhenshi Santian Shiye Youxiangongsi v. Qiu

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhenshi Santian Shiye Youxiangongsi (China)
  • Defendant: Zhiyong Qiu (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ziqi Yu
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00781, N.D. Cal., 01/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events, including sales of the accused product and the Defendant's enforcement activities on Amazon.com, occurred in or affected the district. Venue is also alleged on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign resident.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its phone holder product does not infringe Defendant’s design patent for a Selfie Stick Tripod, following Defendant's patent infringement complaint on Amazon.com which resulted in the product's removal.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of combination selfie stick and tripod accessories, a consumer electronics category characterized by numerous variations in form and function.
• Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by an infringement complaint filed by Defendant Zhiyong Qiu on Amazon.com, which led to the delisting of Plaintiff's product. The complaint for declaratory judgment frames the non-infringement argument by asserting that the accused product embodies a different, valid U.S. design patent and is visually distinct from the patent-in-suit. The complaint also identifies several U.S. and Chinese patents as prior art, signaling a potential future challenge to the patent's validity or scope.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2022-07-26	Chinese Patent 1 & 2 Application Dates (Asserted Prior Art)
2022-08-09	**'468** Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2023-03-21	'468 Patent Issue Date
2023-07-13	'754 Patent Application Date (Plaintiff's Licensed Patent)
2024-07-16	'754 Patent Issue Date (Plaintiff's Licensed Patent)
2025-01-18	Defendant Files Infringement Complaint on Amazon.com
2025-01-23	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D981,468 - Selfie Stick Tripod

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution in the manner of utility patents; they protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶1).
• The Patented Solution: The '468 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a selfie stick tripod as depicted in its eleven figures ('468 Patent, CLAIM, DESCRIPTION). The claimed design consists of the visual characteristics of the article, including its configuration and surface ornamentation. Key ornamental features shown in solid lines include a three-legged base where the legs are connected by linkages to a central collar, a telescoping central shaft composed of several cylindrical segments, and a phone clamp assembly at the top ('468 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The patent also shows the design in a collapsed state ('468 Patent, Fig. 11).
• Technical Importance: The design contributes to the overall aesthetic appearance of a consumer electronics accessory, which can be a significant factor in purchasing decisions in a crowded market.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a selfie stick tripod, as shown and described" ('468 Patent, CLAIM).
• The essential visual elements of this single claim are defined by the illustrations and include:
  • The overall configuration of the device in both extended tripod and contracted states.
  • The specific shape and proportions of the tripod legs and their connection mechanism.
  • The appearance of the multi-segment telescoping shaft.
  • The particular design of the phone holder clamp at the apex of the device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is a "phone holder" sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com under the trade name "TODI INC." and identified by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) B0CJTL7Q3J (Compl. ¶¶2, 8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the product as a phone holder sold to consumers in the United States, including in California (Compl. ¶13). The Plaintiff alleges that its Accused Product "aligns with and embodies the design claimed by the '754 Patent," a separate U.S. Design Patent of which Plaintiff is a licensee (Compl. ¶¶4, 14). This assertion forms a primary basis for the Plaintiff's non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not provide a claim chart alleging infringement. Instead, it presents arguments for why the Accused Product does not infringe the '468 Patent. The core of the dispute centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.

The complaint's narrative theory of non-infringement is twofold:

1. Distinct Patented Designs: The Plaintiff alleges its Accused Product embodies the design of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,035,754, which is presumed valid and enforceable (Compl. ¶¶29, 31). Because the Accused Product allegedly embodies this separate patented design, the Plaintiff argues it is "so vastly different from the design claimed by the '468 Patent that it cannot infringe the '468 Patent" (Compl. ¶31).
2. Ordinary Observer Standard: The Plaintiff asserts that, to an ordinary observer, the Accused Product and the design claimed by the '468 Patent are "so vastly different that the observer would not be deceived into purchasing the Accused Product under the impression that the Accused Product is the design claimed by the '468 Patent" (Compl. ¶36).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of written terms is generally not the central issue. The analysis is a visual comparison.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for a selfie stick tripod, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on a visual comparison between the claimed design and the accused product. The dispute will focus on the overall visual impression of the design, rather than the definition of a specific word. Practitioners may focus on how the asserted prior art limits the scope of the claimed design. The Plaintiff's complaint specifically identifies U.S. Design Patent D1,024,172 and two Chinese patents as being "highly similar" or "nearly identical" to the '468 Patent's design, suggesting these will be used to argue that only minor, specific differences in the '468 Patent are protected (Compl. ¶¶19, 22, 35).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might emphasize the overall visual impression and general configuration of a telescoping tripod with a phone clamp, as shown in Figure 1, arguing that minor variations in the accused product do not change the overall similarity.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope would point to the specific, detailed features shown in the drawings, such as the precise shape of the leg linkages (Fig. 7), the pattern on the telescoping segments (Fig. 8), or the particular structure of the phone clamp (Fig. 10), arguing that these details define the protectable design and distinguish it from both the prior art and the accused product.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a blanket denial of any direct or indirect infringement of the '468 Patent (Compl. ¶¶28, 37).
• Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is not alleged, as this is a declaratory judgment action brought by the accused infringer.

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

1. A question of visual identity: Will an ordinary observer, in light of the prior art, find the overall visual appearance of the Plaintiff's phone holder to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '468 Patent? The case will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the product and the patent figures.
2. A question of scope defined by prior art: How will the various U.S. and Chinese patents cited by the Plaintiff as being "nearly identical" to the '468 Patent's design affect the scope of design protection afforded to the patent-in-suit? This may narrow the infringement analysis to only the most detailed ornamental features not present in the asserted prior art.
3. A question of competing patents: What legal weight, if any, will be given to the Plaintiff's allegation that its product embodies a different, separately issued U.S. Design Patent ('754 Patent)? While not a dispositive defense, this assertion may be presented as persuasive evidence of design differentiation to the fact-finder.