DCT
3:25-cv-01298
Shandong Yunxiang Century Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Huang
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shandong Yunxiang Century Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Shandong Jiuhui Information Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Yannan Huang (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SHM Law Firm
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01298, N.D. Cal., 12/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim, including the removal of product listings from Amazon.com and the resulting commercial harm, occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their gel seat cushion products do not infringe Defendant’s design patent, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following Defendant’s successful patent infringement complaint to Amazon that resulted in the delisting of Plaintiffs' products.
- Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of gel seat cushions, a consumer product category where visual appearance is a significant factor in a competitive e-commerce market.
- Key Procedural History: The central event precipitating this lawsuit is Defendant's assertion of the patent-in-suit through Amazon's intellectual property enforcement system, which caused the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings. Plaintiffs allege this action by Defendant created an actual controversy, providing the basis for their declaratory judgment action. Plaintiffs also allege that their own products, along with other third-party products, were publicly available prior to the patent's priority date, forming the basis for their invalidity and inequitable conduct claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-06-26 | "ADUKEN Gel Seat Cushion" allegedly available on Amazon |
| 2021-03-03 | "OMCOZY Gel Seat Cushion" allegedly available on Amazon |
| 2021-03-12 | Plaintiffs' accused "Non-Infringing Seat Cushions" first available on Amazon |
| 2021-06-21 | U.S. Patent No. D962,680 Priority Date |
| 2022-09-06 | U.S. Patent No. D962,680 Issues |
| 2025-01-29 | Plaintiffs receive notification from Amazon of product removal |
| 2025-12-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D962,680 S - "GEL SEAT CUSHION"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D962,680 S, titled "GEL SEAT CUSHION," issued on September 6, 2022 (the "'680 Patent"). (Compl. ¶26).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The objective is to create a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design for a product.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "gel seat cushion" as depicted in its nine figures ('680 Patent, Claim). The design features a generally square cushion with rounded corners, a top surface comprised of a repeating cellular pattern, and a defined profile for its side, top, and bottom views ('680 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Enlarged views illustrate the specific geometry of the cells, which appear as hexagonal columns in perspective and a grid of interlocking triangles from a top-down view ('680 Patent, Figs. 8-9).
- Technical Importance: In the market for consumer goods such as seat cushions, the overall ornamental design can serve as a key product differentiator and a driver of consumer purchasing decisions. (Compl. ¶¶9, 23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for a gel seat cushion, as shown and described." ('680 Patent, Claim).
- The claim's scope is defined by the visual characteristics of the cushion as illustrated in the solid lines of the patent's figures, including:
- The overall shape and contour of the cushion.
- The specific repeating pattern on the top and bottom surfaces.
- The structure and appearance of the cushion's side walls.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiffs' "Non-Infringing Seat Cushions" sold on Amazon.com under the ASINs B0BGKQC3JH, B08YRRNCCK, and B08YRVZ8Z1 (the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶¶12-13, 17-18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are gel seat cushions sold through Plaintiffs' Amazon storefronts, which constitute their "primary sales channel" into the United States. (Compl. ¶¶17, 23). The complaint presents photographic evidence of the Accused Products, including perspective, front, and side views, for direct comparison against the ’680 Patent's figures. (Compl. pp. 10-13). A comparative image shows the patent's perspective view alongside a photograph of the blue, gel-based accused cushion. (Compl. p. 10, Fig 1 Perspective View comparison).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the Plaintiffs' arguments for why the Accused Products are "substantially different" from the patented design. (Compl. ¶30).
Claim Chart Summary
’680 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from overall design) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a gel seat cushion, as shown and described. | The Accused Products have a substantially different overall appearance that would not deceive an ordinary observer into believing they are the same as the patented design. | ¶29 | Figs. 1-9 |
| Edge structure and pattern. | The patented design's edges are symmetrical with a continuous and uniform honeycomb structure. The Accused Products' edges are asymmetrical, with an offset honeycomb structure creating a "staggered, stepped appearance." | ¶30 | Figs. 1, 8 |
| Side view profile and end curvature. | The patented design's left-side view shows square ends. The Accused Products' left-side view features "rounded and convex ends." | ¶30 | Fig. 4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- The central test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint frames the dispute around specific visual differences.
- Scope Questions: The case will question whether the overall visual impression created by the Accused Products is the same as that of the patented design.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the differences alleged by 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 distinct visual impression, or if they are minor variations that an ordinary observer would overlook. The complaint provides an enlarged view comparing the patented design's cell structure with a close-up photograph of the accused product's structure to highlight these alleged differences. (Compl. p. 13, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 comparisons).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms, as the dispute centers on the overall visual comparison required by design patent law rather than the construction of textual terms. The core legal analysis will involve applying the "ordinary observer" test to the claimed design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's figures.
VI. Other Allegations
Invalidity
- Plaintiffs allege that the ’680 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation by prior art. (Compl. ¶36). The complaint identifies several gel seat cushion products, including the "OMCOZY" (ASIN B08XX3W5KR) and "ADUKEN" (ASIN B07TMF3J8R) cushions, that were allegedly publicly available for sale on Amazon more than one year before the ’680 Patent's filing date. (Compl. ¶¶36-37, 43-44). The complaint includes a chart comparing images of these prior art products to the patented design, arguing they are "substantially identical." (Compl. ¶39, pp. 16-18).
Unenforceability (Inequitable Conduct)
- Plaintiffs allege the ’680 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. (Compl. Count III). The basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendant, as a competing seller, was aware of the material prior art products on Amazon but "knowingly withheld" this information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution with an intent to deceive the agency. (Compl. ¶¶46-47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Visual Distinction: A core issue will be one of ornamental impression: are the alleged differences between the patented design and the Accused Products—specifically the asymmetrical edge pattern and rounded side-view ends—sufficient to create a distinct overall visual appearance for an ordinary observer, or are they minor variations that fail to distinguish the products?
- Anticipation by Prior Art: A key validity question will be one of identity: do the prior art products identified by Plaintiffs, particularly the "OMCOZY" cushion, create substantially the same visual impression as the design claimed in the ’680 Patent, thereby rendering the patent invalid?
- Intent to Deceive: A central question for the unenforceability claim will be evidentiary: can Plaintiffs prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant both knew the prior art was material to patentability and made a deliberate decision to conceal it from the patent examiner with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO?