5:25-cv-01395
Shandong Yunxiang Century Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Purple Innovation LLC
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: Purple Innovation, LLC (Delaware, USA)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SHM Law Firm
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01395, N.D. Cal., 02/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because the defendant, Purple Innovation, purposefully directed patent enforcement activities (via complaints to Amazon) that impacted Plaintiffs' sales in the district, and because the defendant conducts its own business within California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, sellers of seat cushions, seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe Defendant’s design patent for a "cushion with hexagonal cells" and that the patent is invalid in view of prior art.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the ornamental design of gel-polymer seat cushions that use a repeating hexagonal cell (or "honeycomb") structure to provide support and airflow.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed after the defendant, Purple Innovation, submitted patent infringement complaints to Amazon.com, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings from the e-commerce platform. The complaint also notes that the asserted patent claims priority from an earlier-filed application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-08-29 | Publication of Chinese Patent CN 107105891 (alleged prior art) |
| 2017-11-16 | "BulbHead" product available on Amazon (alleged prior art) |
| 2019-06-13 | '930 Patent Priority Date (via parent application) |
| 2023-07-04 | U.S. Patent No. D990,930 Issued |
| 2025-02-09 | Plaintiffs' product listing removed from Amazon |
| 2025-02-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D990,930 (the "’930 Patent"), "Cushion with hexagonal cells," issued July 4, 2023. (Compl. ¶21; ’930 Patent, front page).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’930 Patent does not articulate a technical problem; its purpose is to protect the novel, ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture shown in its figures. (’930 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a cushion. The visual appearance is defined by the solid lines in its seven figures, which show a combination of features: a top surface covered in a repeating pattern of hexagonal cells, an overall rectangular shape with a notable length-to-width ratio, and side profiles that taper toward the ends. (’930 Patent, Claim, Description, FIGs. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the use of hexagonal cells in cushion design is "well-established in the prior art," suggesting this feature is a known solution for providing support and comfort in the seat cushion market. (Compl. ¶38).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The single claim of the ’930 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a cushion with hexagonal cells, as shown and described." (’930 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent's drawings, the essential elements of which are:
- The overall three-dimensional shape and configuration of the cushion.
- The surface ornamentation consisting of a grid of hexagonal cells.
- The specific contours of the cushion as shown in the top, bottom, and side profile views.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Non-Infringing Seat Cushions" sold by Plaintiffs on Amazon.com through the "Hvllyan US" and "KYSMOTIC-US" storefronts. (Compl. ¶¶15-17).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are seat cushions sold directly to consumers online. The complaint alleges that Amazon constitutes Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel" into the United States market and that the removal of their products from the platform has caused "immediate and irreparable harm." (Compl. ¶¶17, 20). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused cushion, showing a blue, gel-like product with a visible hexagonal cell structure. (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, arguing that an ordinary observer would not find the patented design and the accused cushions to be substantially the same. The core of this argument rests on alleged differences in the overall shape and contour, as summarized below.
’930 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Visual Feature of Claimed Design | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of Accused Cushion | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall top-view shape presented as "a distinctly rectangular shape, characterized by a greater length-to-width ratio" | A "more square-like shape with nearly equal side lengths" | ¶40 | FIG. 2 |
| Side profile contour presented as having "a tapered contour that progressively narrows toward the ends" | A "more rounded and smoothly curved profile without a distinct taper" | ¶40 | FIG. 4 |
| Surface pattern of hexagonal cells | Hexagonal cells are present, but Plaintiffs argue this feature is well-established in the prior art and should be discounted in the infringement analysis. | ¶38 | FIG. 1 |
Visual Evidence: A side-by-side comparison in the complaint contrasts the top view of the patented design from FIG. 2 with a photograph of the allegedly more square-like accused cushion. (Compl. p. 12). Another comparison contrasts the tapered side profile from the ’930 Patent's FIG. 4 with a photograph showing the allegedly more rounded profile of the Plaintiffs' cushion. (Compl. p. 13).
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute concerns the application of the ordinary observer test. The court will need to determine if the accused cushions' allegedly "square-like" shape and "rounded" profile are different enough from the patented design's "rectangular" and "tapered" features to avoid creating a substantially similar visual impression.
- Technical Questions: A key legal question, raised explicitly in the complaint, is what weight should be afforded to the similarity of the hexagonal cell pattern. The analysis may turn on whether this pattern is considered a purely ornamental feature or a functional/common design element that should be discounted when comparing the designs as a whole, as Plaintiffs argue by citing Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC. (Compl. ¶¶38-39).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
While design patents do not typically involve the construction of textual claim terms, the interpretation of the visual scope of the claim is central.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a cushion... as shown"
- Context and Importance: The entire dispute hinges on the scope of the visual design protected by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the outcome will depend on whether the claim is limited to the exact rectangular shape and tapered profile shown in the drawings, or if it is broad enough to cover cushions with different overall shapes that share the same hexagonal cell pattern.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the most prominent feature of the design is the repeating hexagonal cell pattern, and that an ordinary observer would perceive two cushions with this pattern as substantially similar, despite minor differences in overall shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures explicitly depict, in solid lines, a cushion with a specific rectangular aspect ratio (FIG. 2) and distinctly tapered side profiles (FIGs. 4-7). This provides strong intrinsic evidence that the scope of the protected design is limited to the specific overall shape and contours shown, not merely any cushion featuring hexagonal cells.
VI. Other Allegations
- Unfair Competition and Tortious Interference: The complaint alleges that Defendant's submission of "baseless" infringement complaints to Amazon constitutes unfair competition under California common law and tortious interference with Plaintiffs' business relationships. (Compl. ¶¶45, 49). These claims are premised on the allegation that Defendant acted improperly and with the intent to disrupt Plaintiffs' sales on the platform. (Compl. ¶49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court’s answers to the following questions:
A question of visual comparison: In the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, do the alleged differences in the accused cushion's overall shape (square-like vs. rectangular) and side profile (rounded vs. tapered) distinguish it from the patented design, or does the shared hexagonal cell pattern create an overall visual impression of substantial similarity?
A question of validity: Is the claimed design of the '930 Patent invalid as obvious in light of prior art, such as the "BulbHead" product and Chinese Patent CN 107105891? This will require determining if the patented design would have been an obvious variation to a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time.
A question of enforcement conduct: Were the Defendant's infringement complaints to Amazon a good-faith effort to enforce its intellectual property rights, or were they, as alleged, objectively baseless and submitted with an improper purpose, thus constituting unfair competition or tortious interference?