DCT
5:25-cv-03864
Guangzhou Shanshui Tongxun Shebei Youxian Gongsi v. Phone Lasso LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangzhou Shanshui Tongxun Shebei Youxian Gongsi, HK Sanli Trading Co., Limited, Hongkong Yuanhong ET Limited, Shen Zhen Shi Ma Si Ka Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si, and Shenzhen Shi Shun Xing Tong Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si (China & Hong Kong)
- Defendant: Phone Lasso, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SHM Law Firm
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-03864, N.D. Cal., 05/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendant's patent enforcement actions via Amazon's APEX program were directed at Plaintiffs' sales activities occurring within the Northern District of California, causing a foreseeable impact and harm in the district.
- Core Dispute: A coalition of online sellers seeks a declaratory judgment that their phone lanyard products do not infringe a patent owned by the Defendant, following Defendant's initiation of an infringement proceeding against the sellers on Amazon's internal dispute resolution platform.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adhesive-backed lanyards that can be universally attached to handheld electronic devices, a product category within the high-volume consumer mobile accessories market.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute began when Defendant Phone Lasso, LLC initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding alleging that Plaintiffs' products infringe the patent-in-suit. Plaintiffs state they provided Defendant with a pre-suit non-infringement analysis before filing this declaratory judgment action. The complaint also asserts state-law claims for unfair competition and tortious interference based on this enforcement activity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-12-09 | '031 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2013-09-03 | '031 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-12-31 | '031 Patent assigned to Defendant Phone Lasso, LLC |
| 2025-04-15 | Defendant files APEX patent infringement complaint with Amazon |
| 2025-04-29 | Plaintiffs' counsel provides non-infringement analysis to Defendant |
| 2025-05-03 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,523,031 - "Lanyard Apparatus for Carrying Devices"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,523,031, "Lanyard Apparatus for Carrying Devices", issued September 3, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that handheld devices like cell phones are ubiquitous but are easily dropped, damaged, stolen, or lost when carried in a pocket or bag (ʼ031 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus for carrying devices, comprising a flexible substrate with an adhesive layer on its back side. This adhesive is covered by a protective release liner. A user removes the liner to expose the adhesive and affix the substrate to a device, such as a phone. A lanyard is attached to the substrate, allowing the device to be worn securely. ('031 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is that the protective liner itself can include printed patterns that act as guides for a user to cut apertures in the substrate, for instance, to avoid covering a camera lens (ʼ031 Patent, col. 8:1-14; Fig. 12A).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a universal, aftermarket method for adding a lanyard to a wide variety of electronic devices without requiring a device-specific case or modification to the device itself (ʼ031 Patent, col. 5:15-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to independent claims 1 and 20 (Compl. ¶¶ 30-32, 42, 44).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A flexible substrate with an adhesive layer.
- A protective layer "releasably secured" to the adhesive, which, when removed, exposes the adhesive.
- A lanyard secured to the substrate.
- The "protective layer includes one or more patterns to facilitate forming cutouts in the substrate."
- Independent Claim 20 requires:
- A substrate with an adhesive layer and an "attachment loop."
- A protective layer "releasably secured" to the adhesive.
- A lanyard secured to the attachment loop.
- The "protective layer includes one or more patterns to facilitate forming cutouts in the substrate."
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims of the '031 Patent (Compl. ¶41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "Non-Infringing Phone Lanyards" sold by the Plaintiffs on Amazon.com under various storefront names (Compl. ¶18). The complaint identifies specific products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs), including B0CQ8796QK, B083158CBJ, and others (Compl. ¶¶ 19-23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The products are described as phone lanyard accessories sold to U.S. consumers through Amazon, which constitutes Plaintiffs' primary sales channel (Compl. ¶25). The complaint's non-infringement theory centers on what the products allegedly lack, rather than what they contain. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the products do not have a protective layer with patterns for forming cutouts, and that at least one product line lacks a "releasably secured" protective layer altogether (Compl. ¶¶ 42-45).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes Plaintiffs' asserted basis for why their products do not meet the limitations of the patent claims.
'031 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a protective layer of material releasably secured to the adhesive material... | Plaintiffs allege that some of their accused products, such as ASIN B0CQ8796QK, do not include any protective layer, nor do they have an adhesive material that would support one. | ¶43, ¶45 | col. 9:10-14 |
| ...the protective layer includes one or more patterns to facilitate forming cutouts in the substrate... | Plaintiffs allege that their Non-Infringing Phone Lanyards lack this limitation entirely. | ¶42, ¶44 | col. 9:17-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A central factual dispute will be whether the accused products are manufactured and sold with a "protective layer of material releasably secured to the adhesive material." The complaint alleges that at least one product line omits this feature (Compl. ¶43). This raises a direct question of fact that will depend on evidence from the actual products.
- Scope Question: The dispute also centers on the meaning of "patterns to facilitate forming cutouts." Plaintiffs allege their products lack this feature (Compl. ¶42). The court may need to determine whether this term is limited to explicit graphical guides for cutting, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it could be read more broadly to include other markings or instructions that might be present on the accused products or their packaging.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "patterns to facilitate forming cutouts"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears in both asserted independent claims and is a primary basis for Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 44). The outcome of the case could hinge on whether any markings on the accused products fall within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the protective layer "may include a pattern thereon for facilitating cutting an aperture in the flexible substrate by a user" ('031 Patent, col. 2:21-23). The use of the general word "pattern" without further definition in the text could support an argument that it is not limited to a specific type of visual.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only embodiments of "patterns" disclosed in the patent are specific graphical outlines corresponding to camera lens locations on different models of cell phones (e.g., "CUT IF PHONE A," "CUT IF PHONE B") ('031 Patent, Fig. 12A; col. 8:1-14). A party could argue the term should be limited to such functional, graphical cutting guides.
The Term: "releasably secured"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiffs' non-infringement case for at least one product line depends on the argument that it lacks a "protective layer" that is "releasably secured" (Compl. ¶43). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether a product that is, for example, sold in a simple plastic wrapper without a dedicated adhesive backing liner, meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the protective layer simply as being "configured to be removed from the adhesive material" and gives "kraft paper" as an example ('031 Patent, col. 5:31-36). This suggests a common, functional meaning of being removable by a user before application.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites that the layer is "releasably secured to the adhesive material," which may imply a direct bond between a release liner and an adhesive layer, a specific configuration that Plaintiffs might argue their products do not possess.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: As this is a declaratory judgment action, the complaint asserts that Plaintiffs have not infringed the '031 Patent either directly or indirectly (contributorily or by inducement) (Compl. ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not address willfulness in the traditional sense. Instead, it alleges that Defendant engaged in "bad-faith enforcement" by filing and maintaining the APEX complaint with Amazon despite allegedly receiving notice that the accused products were non-infringing and without conducting a reasonable pre-filing investigation (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 49). These allegations form the basis for Plaintiffs' state law claims and request for attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 54; Prayer for Relief ¶F).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "patterns to facilitate forming cutouts," which is exemplified in the patent as graphical guides for camera holes, be construed to read on the accused products, which Plaintiffs allege lack any such feature?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: do the accused products, as sold in commerce, incorporate a "protective layer of material releasably secured to the adhesive material," or is their construction fundamentally different, as Plaintiffs allege for at least one of their product lines?
- The case also presents a question of enforcement conduct: did the Defendant's decision to pursue an Amazon APEX complaint, and its alleged refusal to withdraw it after receiving Plaintiffs' pre-suit analysis, constitute bad-faith conduct sufficient to support claims for tortious interference and unfair competition under California law?