3:25-cv-01298
Shandong Yunxiang Century Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Huang
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiffs: Shandong Yunxiang Century Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Shandong Jiuhui Information Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Yannan Huang (China)
- Plaintiffs’ Counsel: SHM Law Firm
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01298, N.D. Cal., 02/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs assert that venue is proper because the Defendant purposefully directed patent enforcement activities toward California by filing infringement complaints with Amazon, which led to the removal of Plaintiffs' products sold in the state and caused harm to their business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their gel seat cushion products do not infringe the Defendant's design patent, and further allege the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following the Defendant's successful use of Amazon's intellectual property complaint system to have Plaintiffs' product listings removed.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of gel seat cushions, a consumer product category within the market for ergonomic and comfort-enhancing goods.
- Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by Defendant's pre-suit infringement complaints filed with Amazon, which resulted in the takedown of Plaintiffs' product listings. The complaint alleges that this action constitutes tortious interference and unfair competition. Plaintiffs also assert that the patent-in-suit is unenforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct, claiming the Defendant knowingly withheld material prior art from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-06-26 | Alleged public availability of ADUKEN prior art product |
| 2021-03-03 | Alleged public availability of OMCOZY prior art product |
| 2021-03-12 | Alleged public availability of KYSMOTIC prior art product |
| 2021-06-21 | D'680 Patent application (priority) date |
| 2022-09-06 | D'680 Patent issue date |
| 2025-01-29 | Plaintiffs receive Amazon takedown notification |
| 2025-02-07 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D962,680 S - “GEL SEAT CUSHION”
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D962,680 S, titled “GEL SEAT CUSHION,” issued on September 6, 2022 (the “’D680 Patent”). (Compl. ¶16; ’D680 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian function. The ’D680 Patent addresses the "problem" of creating a new, original, and ornamental design for a gel seat cushion.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual characteristics of a gel seat cushion as depicted in its nine figures (’D680 Patent, Figs. 1-9). The claimed design consists of the cushion's overall rectangular shape with rounded corners, a repeating surface pattern of honeycomb-like cells, and the specific structure of its top, bottom, and side edges (’D680 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The claim covers the entire ornamental design "as shown and described" (’D680 Patent, CLAIM).
- Technical Importance: The design's importance lies in its aesthetic presentation in a competitive consumer product marketplace where visual appearance can be a key differentiator.
Key Claims at a Glance
Design patents contain a single claim, which incorporates the drawings by reference. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a gel seat cushion, as shown and described." (Compl. ¶16; ’D680 Patent, CLAIM).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products as the "Non-Infringing Seat Cushions" sold by Plaintiffs on Amazon.com through the storefronts “Hvllyan US” and “KYSMOTIC-US” (Compl. ¶¶10-12, 14). Specific products are identified by Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs), including B0BGKQC3JH, B08YRRNCCK, and B08YRVZ8Z1 (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
Functionality and Market Context
The products are gel seat cushions. The complaint alleges that the Amazon marketplace is Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel into the United States" and that the removal of their listings has caused "immediate and irreparable harm" by cutting them off from their "largest channel of trade" (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 19). The complaint includes several images of the accused products to illustrate their design (Compl. pp. 7-9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a declaratory judgment action, the Plaintiffs allege non-infringement. The central test for design patent 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. The complaint presents its non-infringement arguments through both narrative and a side-by-side visual comparison. The complaint provides a chart comparing figures from the ’D680 Patent to photographs of the accused "Non-Infringing Seat Cushions" (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 1-3).
The complaint alleges the following key differences:
| Alleged Difference | Patented Design Feature (as alleged by Plaintiffs) | Accused Product Feature (as alleged by Plaintiffs) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edge Structure | Edges are "symmetrical, with the honeycomb structure aligned in a continuous and uniform pattern." | Edges exhibit "distinct asymmetry, with the honeycomb structure offset from each other, creating a staggered, stepped appearance." | ¶20 |
| Side Profile | The left-side view shows "square ends." | The left-side view features "rounded and convex ends." | ¶20 |
| Overall Impression | The combination of features creates a specific overall visual appearance. | The alleged differences in edge structure and curvature create "a clear difference in the overall shape" and appearance. | ¶¶20-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Scope: The core dispute will turn on the overall visual impression created by the two designs. A central question is whether the differences articulated by the Plaintiffs—specifically the "staggered, stepped appearance" of the edges and the "rounded and convex ends" of the side profile—are significant enough to create a different overall appearance in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
- Role of Prior Art: The infringement analysis must be conducted in the context of the prior art. The complaint's invalidity arguments, which feature several similar prior art cushions, suggest that the scope of the ’D680 Patent's design may be narrow. The question will be whether the patented design is only a minor variation over the prior art, which would mean that only products with a very similar overall appearance could infringe.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction is generally not a central issue in design patent litigation, as the single claim consists of the drawings themselves. The complaint does not raise any issues of claim construction, instead focusing on a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the patented design and the accused products.
VI. Other Allegations
- Invalidity: Plaintiffs allege that the ’D680 Patent is invalid as anticipated by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Compl. ¶26). The complaint identifies specific products, the "OMCOZY," "ADUKEN," and "KYSMOTIC" gel seat cushions, which were allegedly publicly available for sale on Amazon more than one year before the patent's June 21, 2021 filing date (Compl. ¶¶27, 32). To support this, the complaint includes a visual comparison chart showing the patented design alongside images of the OMCOZY and ADUKEN prior art products (Compl. pp. 13-15).
- Unenforceability / Inequitable Conduct: Plaintiffs allege that the ’D680 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. Count III). The basis for this claim is the allegation that the Defendant was aware of the material prior art but "knowingly withheld" it from the USPTO during prosecution with an intent to deceive the agency (Compl. ¶33).
- State Law Claims: The complaint includes claims for unfair competition and tortious interference (Compl. Counts IV-V). These claims are based on the allegation that Defendant knowingly made "baseless" and "improper" infringement complaints to Amazon for the purpose of disrupting Plaintiffs' business relationships and sales (Compl. ¶¶37, 41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on three primary questions for the court:
- A Question of Visual Distinction: For the non-infringement claim, the central issue is whether the visual differences alleged by Plaintiffs, such as the "staggered" edges and "rounded" side profile of their products, are sufficient to distinguish their overall design from the patented design in the mind of an ordinary observer who is aware of the prior art landscape.
- An Evidentiary Question of Prior Art: For the invalidity claim, the key question is whether the prior art products cited by Plaintiffs (e.g., OMCOZY, ADUKEN) were publicly available before the critical date and are "substantially identical" to the patented design. The visual evidence presented in the complaint suggests a high degree of similarity, shifting the focus to the evidence proving the dates of public availability.
- A Question of Intent: For the unenforceability and state-law claims, the case will likely turn on Plaintiffs' ability to prove Defendant's state of mind. Can Plaintiffs establish that the Defendant knew the prior art was material and deliberately withheld it from the USPTO, and that the subsequent enforcement actions on Amazon were not just aggressive but were pursued in bad faith?