DCT

1:22-cv-01186

HK Sanodesk Co v. Office Kick Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01186, D. Colo., 05/12/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Colorado based on Defendant Office Kick, Inc. being a resident of the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their adjustable platform desk products do not infringe Defendants' patent for a vertically adjusting desktop workspace, following Defendants' infringement allegations made through the Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Program.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns ergonomic accessories, specifically height-adjustable desktop platforms (or "desk risers") that convert a standard stationary desk into a sit-stand workstation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this lawsuit was precipitated by Defendants' use of Amazon's patent enforcement program, which resulted in the removal of more than 30 of Plaintiffs' product listings from the Amazon marketplace. The complaint notes this action by Defendants began one week after their patent issued.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-01-24 ’367 Patent Priority Date
2021-11-02 ’367 Patent Issue Date
2021-11-09 Defendants allege infringement to Amazon
2021-11-18 Defendants submit neutral evaluation request to Amazon
2021-12-10 First wave of Plaintiffs' products removed from Amazon
2021-12-15 Second wave of takedown requests initiated by Defendants
2022-03-31 Second wave of Plaintiffs' products removed from Amazon
2022-04-06 Third wave of Plaintiffs' products removed from Amazon
2022-05-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,160,367 - "Desktop Workspace That Adjusts Vertically"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,160,367, "Desktop Workspace That Adjusts Vertically", issued November 2, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the health risks of prolonged sitting and notes that while height-adjustable desks are available, purchasing an entirely new desk is unreasonable for many who already own a stationary one (’367 Patent, col. 1:33-48). The invention seeks to improve upon existing desktop platforms that can be placed on top of a standard desk (’367 Patent, col. 1:49-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a self-contained desktop unit that can be placed on an existing desk to provide a height-adjustable work surface (’367 Patent, Abstract). The core of the invention is a "height adjustment mechanism" that uses at least one set of pivoting arms connected at a "scissoring pivot point" to raise and lower the work surface in a straight vertical motion, assisted by a gas spring (’367 Patent, col. 2:6-12; col. 4:15-28). The design aims to be compact when fully lowered (’367 Patent, col. 5:36-44).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for converting a conventional desk into an ergonomic sit-stand workstation without requiring replacement of the entire piece of furniture, addressing a growing market for office ergonomics (’367 Patent, col. 1:38-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶37).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A desktop workspace that adjusts vertically, comprising:
    • a work surface platform;
    • a keyboard platform protruding out, down, and parallel to the work surface;
    • a base to sit on an existing platform;
    • a height adjustment mechanism connecting the platform and base, which itself includes:
      • a set of pivot arms connecting at a "scissoring pivot point";
      • a "base pivot point" fixed to the base;
      • a "platform pivot point" fixed to the work surface platform;
      • a "sliding mechanism" on an end of an arm; and
      • a gas spring to assist elevation, wherein an end of the gas spring is "fixed to the work surface platform."
  • The complaint notes that claim 10 is highly similar to claim 1, but differs in the final limitation, requiring instead that the gas spring is "attached directly to the one of the set of pivot arms" (Compl. ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiffs’ "adjustable platform desks," sold on Amazon and identified in the complaint by a list of over 30 Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶15, 25). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as height-adjustable work surfaces designed to be placed on existing tables or desks, which users can manually lift or lower (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes an exemplary photo of a Loctek adjustable platform desk, showing a two-tiered surface supported by a cross-braced lifting mechanism (Compl. pg. 5).
  • Plaintiffs allege that a "majority of Loctek's U.S. sales of the Accused Products are made via the Amazon marketplace" and that the removal of these products from Amazon is causing "immediate and significant financial losses" (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The table below summarizes Plaintiffs' denial that the Accused Products contain the features required by the patent claims, as alleged by Defendants in their communications with Amazon.

’367 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a height adjustment mechanism connecting the work surface platform and the base Plaintiffs assert the Accused Products do not have this element. ¶38 col. 4:15-17
a set of pivot arms that connect at a scissoring pivot point creating a scissoring motion Plaintiffs assert the Accused Products do not have this element. ¶38 col. 4:18-21
a platform pivot point fixed relative to the work surface platform and connecting the work surface platform and the set of pivot arms Plaintiffs assert the Accused Products do not have this element. ¶38 col. 5:10-14
a sliding mechanism on an end of an arm of the set of pivot arms between the end of the arm and either the work surface platform or the base Plaintiffs assert the Accused Products do not have this element. ¶38 col. 4:21-24
a gas spring that assists in elevation... wherein an end of the gas spring is fixed to the work surface platform Plaintiffs assert the Accused Products do not have this element. ¶38 col. 8:39-44

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Questions: The complaint makes the broad assertion that the Accused Products lack the core structural components of the claimed invention, including the "height adjustment mechanism" itself, the "pivot arms that connect at a scissoring point," the "platform pivot point," and the "sliding mechanism" (Compl. ¶38). This raises the fundamental question of what type of lifting mechanism the Accused Products actually use and how it differs structurally from the claimed X-shaped "scissor motion" design.
  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute will be the proper construction of the claim terms. Given the visual similarity between the patented design and the product photo (Compl. pg. 5), the case may turn on whether Plaintiffs' mechanism, while functionally similar, is structurally different enough to fall outside the specific definitions of "scissoring pivot point" or the precise gas spring attachment points recited in claims 1 and 10.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "fixed to the work surface platform" (in Claim 1) versus "attached directly to the one of the set of pivot arms" (in Claim 10).

    • Context and Importance: These phrases define the attachment point of the gas spring and represent the only recited difference between the two asserted independent claims (Compl. ¶37). Plaintiffs' denial of these elements makes their construction central to the infringement analysis (Compl. ¶38). Practitioners may focus on this distinction, as the patent's specification and figures could be used to argue for or against the interchangeability and scope of these terms.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the force-providing element (36) in general terms, stating it "can be a variety of different mechanisms" including springs, motors, or linear actuators, and can be connected in various places, including to a cross beam (34) or directly to the pivot arms (28) (’367 Patent, col. 5:6-16; col. 6:21-34). This flexibility may support a broader reading of how the spring can be "fixed" or "attached."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific. Claim 1 requires the spring be "fixed to the work surface platform," while Claim 10 requires it be "attached directly to... the pivot arms." These are distinct locations. The exemplary figures (e.g., Fig. 2C, 4) appear to show the gas spring (36) connected to a cross beam (34), which is itself connected to the pivot arms. A party could argue this arrangement does not meet the literal language of either "fixed to the work surface platform" or "attached directly to" the pivot arms, potentially creating a non-infringement argument.

  • The Term: "scissoring pivot point"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the fundamental motion of the claimed invention. Plaintiffs' assertion that their products lack "pivot arms that connect at a scissoring point" makes the definition of this term critical (Compl. ¶38).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the general mechanical action: two arms (16, 18) connect at a pivot point (28), with other ends pivoting and sliding, "creating a scissor motion to allow the work surface platform 10 to move up and down" (’367 Patent, col. 4:21-28). This language could be argued to cover any mechanism that achieves vertical lift through a similar crossing-arm action.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 1, consistently depict a classic "X" shaped scissor-lift linkage. If the Accused Products utilize a different type of linkage to achieve vertical lift (e.g., a parallel-bar or Z-lift mechanism), Plaintiffs may argue that their product does not contain a "scissoring pivot point" as specifically embodied and disclosed in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement "either directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶43, Prayer for Relief ¶(a)). However, the complaint does not provide specific facts alleged by Defendants that would support a claim for indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations related to willful infringement.

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim construction and structural definition: can the mechanical terms of the ’367 patent, such as "scissoring pivot point" and the specific gas spring attachment limitations, be construed to read on the specific lifting mechanism employed by Plaintiffs' adjustable desk products? Plaintiffs' sweeping denial of having these core components suggests the case will turn on narrow, technical distinctions between the patented design and the accused structure.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional comparison: following claim construction, the dispute will focus on a direct comparison between the mechanical operation of the Accused Products and the patent's claims. The primary question for the court will be whether any structural differences in Plaintiffs' products create a functional departure that is sufficient to place them outside the literal scope of the asserted claims.