DCT
1:22-cv-01186
HK Sanodesk Co v. Office Kick Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Vovomart (HK) Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong); HK Sanodesk Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong); Loctek Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Office Kick, Inc. (Colorado); CKnapp Sales Inc. d/b/a VIVO (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP; Goodwin Procter LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01186, D. Colo., 08/11/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Office Kick, Inc. being a Colorado corporation and Defendant VIVO allegedly having taken actions to enforce the patents-in-suit within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their adjustable platform desk products do not infringe two patents asserted by Defendants through Amazon.com's patent enforcement program, which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiffs' products.
- Technical Context: The technology involves vertically adjustable desktop platforms, or "desk risers," which are placed on existing desks to create an ergonomic sit-stand workstation.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute originated not in court but through Defendants' use of Amazon's "Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Program" to allege infringement, leading to the removal of numerous Loctek product listings. The complaint notes that Defendants have not previously asserted these patents in litigation and that at least one other company has filed a similar declaratory judgment action against the same defendants.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-01-24 | Earliest Priority Date for '367 Patent |
| 2018-03-30 | Earliest Priority Date for '366 Patent |
| 2021-10-19 | '366 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-11-02 | '367 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-11-09 | Defendants allege infringement of '367 Patent to Amazon |
| 2021-11-18 | Defendants submit '367 Patent for Amazon neutral evaluation |
| 2021-12-10 | First wave of Plaintiff's products removed from Amazon |
| 2021-12-15 | Defendants initiate second wave of takedown requests |
| 2022-03-31 | Second wave of Plaintiff's products removed from Amazon |
| 2022-04-06 | Third wave of Plaintiff's products removed from Amazon |
| 2022-08-11 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
Analyst's Note: The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,160,366 and reproduces claim language from it. However, the provided patent document bearing that number (US 11,160,366 B2, "Height Adjustment Mechanism") does not match the title, issue date, or claim language described in the complaint. The following analysis of the '366 patent is therefore based exclusively on the information presented in the complaint, as that forms the basis of the legal dispute.
U.S. Patent No. 11,160,367, Desktop Workspace That Adjusts Vertically, issued November 2, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improvements in existing adjustable desk platforms, citing a desire for straight vertical motion (without protruding toward the user), better load distribution, and a more compact design when lowered ('367 Patent, col. 1:50-col. 2:4). It also notes the health benefits of alternating between sitting and standing and the high cost of replacing an entire desk ('367 Patent, col. 1:32-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained unit placed on an existing desk, comprising a work surface platform, a base, and a height adjustment mechanism that uses a "scissor motion" of pivoting arms to raise and lower the platform ('367 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-12). This mechanism is designed to keep the platform's movement strictly vertical, maintaining its alignment with the base ('367 Patent, col. 3:36-44).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for retrofitting a standard, stationary desk with sit-stand capabilities in a manner intended to be more compact and user-friendly than prior solutions ('367 Patent, col. 1:50-col. 2:4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶43).
- Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- A desktop workspace that adjusts vertically
- Comprising a work surface platform, a keyboard platform, and a base
- A height adjustment mechanism connecting the platform and base, which 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
- a gas spring to assist elevation
- wherein an end of the gas spring is fixed to the work surface platform
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is common practice.
U.S. Patent No. 11,160,366, Desktop Workspace that Adjusts Vertically, issued October 19, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not provide the background section of the '366 patent for analysis. Based on the asserted claim language, the problem appears similar to that of the '367 patent: providing a mechanism for vertical adjustment of a desktop workspace (Compl. ¶38).
- The Patented Solution: As described in the complaint, the invention is a desktop workspace with a height adjustment mechanism based on a scissoring linkage. Unlike the gas-spring-assisted '367 patent, this invention utilizes a "linear actuator" with a "motor-controlled shaft that extends and retracts" to apply pushing and pulling force to drive the scissoring motion (Compl. ¶38). The claim also requires the linear actuator to be completely covered by the profile of the work surface when viewed from above (Compl. ¶38).
- Technical Importance: This patent appears to claim an electrically-powered, as opposed to a gas-spring-assisted, solution for a vertically adjusting desk riser (Compl. ¶38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38). The complaint also notes differences in independent claims 17 and 22 related to the linear actuator (Compl. ¶38).
- Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements (as quoted in complaint):
- A desktop workspace that adjusts vertically
- Comprising a work surface platform, a keyboard platform, and a base
- A height adjustment mechanism connecting the platform and base, which includes:
- two sets of arms connecting at scissoring pivot points
- base pivot points and platform pivot points
- a sliding mechanism
- a linear actuator including a housing and a motor-controlled shaft that extends and retracts to apply a pushing and pulling force
- wherein the linear actuator is completely covered by the profile of the work surface platform when viewed from above
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "Loctek adjustable platform desks" sold on Amazon and identified in the complaint by over 30 unique Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 25, 29).
Functionality and Market Context
- The products are described as height-adjustable platforms that can be placed on existing tables or desks, allowing a user to manually lift or lower a work surface to alternate between sitting and standing (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides a photograph of a black, two-tiered adjustable platform desk in a raised position, showing its X-shaped lifting frame (Compl. p. 5).
- The complaint alleges that these products represent a majority of the Plaintiffs' U.S. sales and that their delisting from the Amazon marketplace has caused "immediate and significant financial losses" (Compl. ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'367 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, arguing that the accused products lack multiple required claim elements. The complaint provides a list of allegedly missing elements but does not offer a detailed technical explanation or side-by-side comparison.
| 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 | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶44 | col. 8:31-33 |
| a set of pivot arms that connect at a scissoring pivot point creating a scissoring motion | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶44 | col. 8:34-38 |
| a sliding mechanism on an end of an arm of the set of pivot arms... | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶44 | col. 8:45-49 |
| a gas spring that assists in elevation of the work surface platform... | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶44 | col. 8:50-54 |
| wherein an end of the gas spring is fixed to the work surface platform. | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶44 | col. 8:55-57 |
| From Claim 10: wherein the gas spring is attached directly to the one of the set of pivot arms. | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶44 | col. 10:48-50 |
'366 Patent Infringement Allegations
As with the '367 patent, the complaint makes broad allegations of non-infringement without providing specific technical details about the accused product's mechanism.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, per Compl. ¶38) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a height adjustment mechanism connecting the work surface platform and the base | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶39 | Not Available (See Analyst's Note in Sec. II) |
| two sets of arms that connect at scissoring pivot points... | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶39 | Not Available |
| a sliding mechanism on an end of an arm... | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶39 | Not Available |
| a linear actuator including a housing and a motor-controlled shaft that extends and retracts... | Plaintiff alleges this element is not present in the Accused Products. | ¶39 | Not Available |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Mismatch: The primary contention is a fundamental factual dispute. Plaintiffs allege their products lack the core mechanical components recited in both patents' claims, including the entire "height adjustment mechanism," the "scissoring pivot arms," and the specific "gas spring" or "linear actuator" configurations (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 44). The case will depend on a direct factual comparison between the accused products' actual construction and the claim limitations.
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises the question of what lifting mechanism the accused products actually use, if not the claimed scissoring-arm structure. The provided photograph suggests an X-shaped frame, which makes the categorical denial of "pivot arms that connect at a scissoring point" a central technical question for the court to resolve (Compl. p. 5; ¶44).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'367 Patent
- The Term: "fixed to the work surface platform" (Claim 1) vs. "attached directly to the one of the set of pivot arms" (Claim 10).
- Context and Importance: The complaint specifically highlights the different wording regarding the gas spring's attachment point in claims 1 and 10, suggesting this distinction is a key part of the non-infringement theory (Compl. ¶43). Practitioners may focus on whether "fixed to the work surface platform" requires direct physical contact or if it can encompass an indirect connection via an intermediate component, and how that differs from being "attached directly" to an arm.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general description states the height adjustment mechanism "residing between the work surface platform 10 and base 12" which may support a more functional, less structurally rigid interpretation of the connections ('367 Patent, col. 4:14-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description for Claim 10's embodiment states the gas spring is "attached to the scissoring pivot point," which is a very specific structural arrangement that may support a narrow interpretation of "attached directly" ('367 Patent, col. 10:11-12). The figures, such as Figure 5C, show a gas spring (36) connecting between two different arms of the scissoring mechanism, not directly to the top platform itself.
'366 Patent
- The Term: "linear actuator"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiffs' denial that their products contain a "linear actuator meeting the requirements of claims 1, 17 and 22" indicates that the specific characteristics of the actuator—such as having a "motor-controlled shaft" and being "completely covered by the profile of the work surface platform"—are critical to the infringement analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 39).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this term's interpretation based on intrinsic evidence, as the corresponding patent specification was not available for review.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Question of Factual Reality: The core of the case is a stark factual dispute. Can Plaintiffs substantiate their claim that their products, which appear to use an X-frame lifting mechanism, completely lack the "height adjustment mechanism," "scissoring pivot arms," and other fundamental structures recited in the patents? The outcome will likely depend less on nuanced legal interpretation and more on a direct mechanical comparison.
- A Question of Definitional Attachment: For the '367 patent, a central issue will be the construction of the attachment point for the "gas spring." Does the accused product's mechanism meet the specific limitation of being "fixed to the work surface platform" (Claim 1) or "attached directly to the one of the set of pivot arms" (Claim 10)? The distinction between these phrases may be dispositive.
- A Question of Power Source: For the '366 patent, the dispute may center on the "linear actuator" limitation. Does the Plaintiffs' manually-operated desk riser contain any component that could be construed as a "motor-controlled" linear actuator, or is there a clear distinction between the accused manual product and the claimed powered invention?