DCT

4:25-cv-01298

Shandong Yunxiang Century Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Huang

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-01298, N.D. Cal., 12/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because the Defendant, a Chinese citizen with no U.S. residence, purposefully directed patent enforcement activities toward California by submitting infringement complaints to Amazon.com, which foreseeably caused commercial harm to Plaintiffs in the district where their products are sold.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their gel seat cushion products do not infringe Defendant’s design patent, and further that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following Defendant’s infringement complaint to Amazon that resulted in the delisting of Plaintiffs' products.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of gel seat cushions, a consumer product category where visual appearance is a key market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant filing an intellectual property complaint with Amazon, alleging that Plaintiffs' products infringed the patent-in-suit. This action led Amazon to remove Plaintiffs' product listings, prompting Plaintiffs to file this declaratory judgment suit to resolve the infringement dispute and challenge the patent's validity and enforceability.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-03-12 Plaintiffs' accused products first available on Amazon
2021-06-21 U.S. Patent No. D962,680 Priority / Filing Date
2022-09-06 U.S. Patent No. D962,680 Issued
2025-01-29 Amazon notifies Plaintiff of product removal
2025-12-01 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. D962,680 S - "GEL SEAT CUSHION"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'680 Patent does not address a technical problem but instead protects a specific, non-functional, ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D'680 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the unique visual appearance of a gel seat cushion as depicted in its nine figures (D'680 Patent, DESCRIPTION, col. 1:61-62). The design consists of a generally square cushion with rounded corners, featuring a top surface with a repeating honeycomb-like pattern and side profiles with a distinct, uniform structure (D'680 Patent, Figs. 1, 2, 4). The enlarged views in Figures 8 and 9 detail the specific geometry of the honeycomb cells and their arrangement (D'680 Patent, Figs. 8-9).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific aesthetic for gel seat cushions, an area where ornamental appearance can be a significant factor in consumer purchasing decisions.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is pictorial rather than textual. The D'680 Patent claims: "The ornamental design for a gel seat cushion, as shown and described" (D'680 Patent, col. 1:57-59).
  • The essential visual elements of this claim are defined by the patent's drawings and include:
    • The overall shape and configuration of the cushion.
    • The surface ornamentation, consisting of a repeating pattern of cells.
    • The appearance of the top, bottom, front, back, and side views.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Plaintiffs' "Non-Infringing Seat Cushions" sold on Amazon under ASINs including B0BGKQC3JH, B08YRRNCCK, and B08YRVZ8Z1 (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the products as gel seat cushions sold through Plaintiffs' Amazon storefronts "Hvllyan US" and "KYSMOTIC-US" (Compl. ¶¶16-18). For the purposes of design patent analysis, their key characteristic is their visual appearance.
  • The complaint alleges that these products are sold across the United States and that the Amazon marketplace is Plaintiffs' primary sales channel (Compl. ¶¶5, 23). The delisted product, ASIN B0BGKQC3JH, is described as a "top-selling product" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes several photographs of the accused cushions, such as a perspective view showing a blue, honeycomb-patterned cushion (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes Plaintiffs' arguments for why their product design is visually distinct from the patented design, based on the "ordinary observer" test.

Claim Chart Summary

Claimed Design Feature (from D'680 Patent) Alleged Distinguishing Feature of Accused Product Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall design as shown and described, including edge structure. The edges of the accused cushions consist of an irregular, "staggered, stepped" honeycomb structure, creating a distinct asymmetry. ¶30 col. 1:57-59
The edge structure is symmetrical, with the honeycomb pattern aligned in a continuous and uniform vertical pattern. The honeycomb structure is offset between layers, which Plaintiffs allege creates a different visual impression than the patented design. A side-by-side visual comparison highlights this alleged asymmetry (Compl. p. 11, Fig. 4 comparison). ¶30 col. 1:65-66
The left-side view shows square ends or corners at the top and bottom of the cushion's profile. The left-side view of the accused cushions features rounded and convex ends, creating a different overall shape and curvature. An enlarged view contrasts the patented design's cell structure with the accused product's structure (Compl. p. 13, Fig. 8 comparison). ¶30 col. 1:65-66

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central question is whether the differences alleged by Plaintiffs are significant enough to preclude a finding of infringement under the ordinary observer test. This raises the question of whether an ordinary observer would find the overall visual impression of the accused cushions to be substantially the same as the claimed design, despite the alleged differences in edge pattern and side profile.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the alleged differences—specifically, the "staggered, stepped" edge versus the "continuous and uniform" edge—impact the overall aesthetic appearance of the cushions when viewed by a potential purchaser. The litigation may focus on whether these differences are minor variations or create a fundamentally distinct design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, analysis focuses on key visual features of the claimed design rather than construing textual terms. The dispute will likely center on the scope and importance of the following features.

  • The Feature: Edge Pattern and Symmetry
  • Context and Importance: Plaintiffs' primary non-infringement argument is that their product's "staggered, stepped" edge creates a different visual impression from the patent's "continuous and uniform pattern" (Compl. ¶30). The resolution of the case may depend on whether this difference is deemed significant enough to distinguish the designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for infringement might contend that the overall honeycomb impression is the dominant feature and that minor variations in edge alignment do not change the design's fundamental character.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, particularly the side views like FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, consistently depict a non-staggered, vertically aligned cell structure at the edges (D'680 Patent, Figs. 4-5). This consistent depiction may support an interpretation that this specific edge treatment is an integral part of the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

Inequitable Conduct and Unfair Competition

  • The complaint alleges that the D'680 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. COUNT III). It asserts that the Defendant, a competing seller, was aware of material prior art products publicly available on Amazon before the patent's filing date and knowingly withheld this information from the USPTO during prosecution (Compl. ¶¶46-47). The complaint presents a chart comparing the patented design to alleged prior art products like the "OMCOZY" and "ADUKEN" cushions (Compl. pp. 16-18).
  • Plaintiffs also bring claims for unfair competition under California law and tortious interference, alleging that Defendant acted in bad faith by submitting "objectively baseless" infringement complaints to Amazon to suppress competition (Compl. ¶¶51, 60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Under the ordinary observer test and considering the prior art, are the alleged differences between the accused cushions and the D'680 patent—particularly the "staggered" edge pattern and "rounded" side profile—sufficient to create a distinct overall visual impression, or are they minor variations on the patented design?
  • A second central issue is patent validity: Is the ornamental design claimed in the D'680 Patent substantially the same as prior art designs that were allegedly on sale more than a year before the patent's filing date, such as the "OMCOZY" product, potentially rendering the patent invalid as anticipated?
  • A final key question relates to enforceability and conduct: Can Plaintiffs prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant knew of material prior art, knew it was material, and made a deliberate decision to withhold it from the USPTO, thereby rendering the patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct?