DCT
4:25-cv-01298
Shandong Yunxiang Century Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Huang
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: 5:25-cv-01298, N.D. Cal., 02/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendant purposefully directed patent enforcement activities (i.e., complaints to Amazon) toward California, where Plaintiffs' products are sold, thereby causing harm within the district.
- Core Dispute: In this declaratory judgment action, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their gel seat cushions do not infringe Defendant's design patent, and further that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following Defendant's successful takedown requests against Plaintiffs' products on Amazon.com.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of gel seat cushions, a consumer product category where aesthetic appearance and features like honeycomb patterns are common.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant's assertion of the patent-in-suit through Amazon's intellectual property enforcement program, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings. Plaintiffs allege this takedown provides the "actual controversy" required for a declaratory judgment action and also forms the basis for state law claims of unfair competition and tortious interference. The complaint further includes allegations that the patent is invalid over prior art and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-06-26 | Alleged prior art "ADUKEN" cushion available on Amazon |
| 2021-03-03 | Alleged prior art "OMCOZY" cushion available on Amazon |
| 2021-03-12 | Alleged prior art "KYSMOTIC" cushion available on Amazon |
| 2021-06-21 | D'680 Patent application filed (priority date) |
| 2022-09-06 | U.S. Design Patent No. D962,680 issues |
| 2025-01-29 | Plaintiff receives notification of product removal from Amazon |
| 2025-02-07 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D962,680 - "GEL SEAT CUSHION"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D962,680 (the "D’680 Patent"), "GEL SEAT CUSHION," issued September 6, 2022. (Compl. ¶16).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The D’680 Patent seeks to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for a gel seat cushion.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a gel seat cushion as illustrated in its nine figures (D'680 Patent, Figs. 1-9). The claimed design consists of the overall shape and surface ornamentation, featuring a generally square form with rounded corners and a repeating pattern of hexagonal cells across its top surface. The side views depict a uniform, flat-ended profile. The sole claim is for "[t]he ornamental design for a gel seat cushion, as shown and described" (D’680 Patent, CLAIM; Compl. ¶16).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic in the competitive market for ergonomic and comfort-related consumer goods.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is asserted here.
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design, as depicted in the patent's figures, include:
- A generally square overall shape with rounded corners.
- A top surface ornamentation consisting of a uniform, symmetrical honeycomb-like cellular pattern.
- Symmetrical edges where the honeycomb pattern is continuous and aligned.
- Side views showing flat, square ends.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiffs' "Non-Infringing Seat Cushions" sold on Amazon.com through the storefronts "Hvllyan US" and "KYSMOTIC-US," identified by ASINs including B0BGKQC3JH, B08YRRNCCK, and B08YRVZ8Z1 (Compl. ¶¶10-12, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused 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" to their business (Compl. ¶¶15, 19). An image provided in the complaint shows Plaintiffs' blue gel cushion, which also features a honeycomb-style pattern. This image, a photo of the "Plaintiffs' Non-Infringing Seat Cushions," is juxtaposed with the patented design's line drawings to highlight alleged differences (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the allegations focus on the differences between the patented design and the accused products. The infringement test for a design patent 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 argues that such deception would not occur due to key visual distinctions.
| Claimed Design Feature (from D'680 Patent) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature (in Plaintiffs' Cushions) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| Symmetrical edges with a continuous and uniform honeycomb pattern. | Asymmetrical edges with a "staggered, stepped appearance" where the honeycomb structure is offset. | ¶20 |
| Left-side view shows "square ends," creating a flat, uniform profile. | Left-side view features "rounded and convex ends," creating a clear distinction in the curvature and overall shape of the side profile. | ¶¶20-21 |
| An enlarged view of the top surface shows a uniform, triangular substructure within the honeycomb pattern. | An enlarged view of the accused product's top surface shows a different, circular-style honeycomb pattern. | p. 10, Fig. 9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question is whether the "ordinary observer" would find the overall visual impressions of the two designs to be substantially the same. This will involve weighing the similarity of the general honeycomb appearance against the specific alleged differences in the edge structure and side profile. The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the left side views to emphasize the difference in end curvature (Compl. p. 8, Fig. 4).
- Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will be the visual significance of the "staggered, stepped appearance" of the accused product's edges versus the "symmetrical" and "continuous" edges of the patented design (Compl. ¶20). An enlarged view comparing a portion of the patented design's cellular structure to that of the accused product is provided to support this distinction (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 8).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically limited, as the claim scope is defined by the patent's drawings. The analysis focuses on the overall visual impression of the design as a whole rather than the definition of written terms.
- The "Term": The overall "ornamental design ... as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement and validity analysis rests on the interpretation of the visual features shown in the patent's figures. The dispute will center not on defining a word, but on determining which visual aspects of the design are most significant to its overall appearance to an ordinary observer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent figures are the primary evidence.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for infringement (the Defendant) may contend that the core of the design is the combination of a square-like cushion with a repeating honeycomb surface pattern, and that the specific edge and side-profile details are minor variations that do not alter the overall visual impression.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiffs argue for a narrower scope by pointing to specific, limiting features in the drawings, such as the "symmetrical" edges, the "continuous and uniform pattern," and the "square ends" of the side profile, suggesting these are integral parts of the claimed design, not mere trifles (Compl. ¶20).
VI. Other Allegations
Invalidity
- The complaint includes a count for a declaratory judgment of invalidity, alleging the D'680 Patent is anticipated by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Compl. ¶¶23-30).
- Plaintiffs identify specific prior art products, including the "OMCOZY Gel Seat Cushion" (ASIN B08XX3W5KR), which was allegedly available on Amazon more than three months before the patent's filing date (Compl. ¶¶27, 32).
- The complaint provides a visual comparison chart, juxtaposing figures from the D'680 Patent with images of the "OMCOZY" and "ADUKEN" prior art products, arguing the references are "substantially identical" to the claimed design (Compl. ¶29; pp. 13-15).
Unenforceability / Inequitable Conduct
- The complaint alleges the D'680 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶¶31-34). It asserts that the Defendant was aware of the material prior art (e.g., the OMCOZY and ADUKEN products) but "knowingly withheld" this information from the USPTO during prosecution with an intent to deceive the agency (Compl. ¶33).
State Law Claims
- Plaintiffs also bring claims for Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference, alleging Defendant acted "unlawfully and unfairly by submitting baseless intellectual property complaints to Amazon" for an improper purpose, causing the wrongful removal of their products and resulting in financial harm (Compl. ¶¶37, 41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Infringement & The Ordinary Observer: A core visual question of substantial similarity: Will an ordinary observer, when considering the prior art, find the alleged differences in the accused cushions—specifically the "staggered" edges and "convex" side profile—sufficient to distinguish them from the patented design's "symmetrical" edges and "square ends," or is the overall impression dominated by the shared honeycomb pattern and general shape?
Validity & Anticipation: A key factual question of identity: Do the identified prior art references, particularly the "OMCOZY" cushion, disclose a design that is visually identical to the one claimed in the D'680 Patent? The outcome will depend on a side-by-side comparison and whether any differences are considered trivial.
Enforceability & Intent: A critical evidentiary question of inequitable conduct: Can Plaintiffs produce clear and convincing evidence to meet the high burden of proving not only that Defendant knew of the prior art and its materiality, but also that Defendant specifically intended to deceive the USPTO by withholding it during prosecution?