DCT
1:24-cv-02357
Changsha Wanweixin Trading Co Ltd v. MedInfo Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Changsha Wanweixin Trading Co., Ltd. (China) and Tengfei Huang (China)
- Defendant: MedInfo Inc (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02357, D. Colo., 08/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted to be proper in the District of Colorado because the Defendant, MedInfo Inc., is a Colorado corporation that resides in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their "Clipboard Products" do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to foldable clipboards and that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-panel foldable clipboards designed to provide a large, stable writing surface when unfolded while being compact for easy transport and storage, a product category relevant to medical, professional, and other mobile fields.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant’s enforcement of its patent through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Program, which Plaintiffs allege created an imminent threat of their product listings being removed from the Amazon Marketplace. The complaint also alleges the Defendant’s infringement reports are "baseless" and constitute tortious interference with business relationships.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-09-15 | Filing date of Wan prior art reference (CN307035753S) |
| 2021-11-03 | Filing date of Khaliq prior art reference (U.S. Patent No. 11,685,182) |
| 2021-12-28 | Issue date of Wan prior art reference |
| 2022-10-17 | Priority date of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,812 |
| 2023-06-27 | Issue date of Khaliq prior art reference |
| 2024-07-16 | Issue date of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,812 |
| 2024-08-06 | Defendant initiated APEX program against Plaintiffs |
| 2024-08-07 | Defendant initiated two Amazon Complaints against Plaintiffs |
| 2024-08-26 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,036,812, "Foldable Clipboard," issued July 16, 2024 (the “’812 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a writing surface like a clipboard that is large enough for practical use but not "large or otherwise cumbersome for a user, including during transportation and/or storage" (’812 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a clipboard constructed from at least three support panels (top, middle, and bottom) connected by hinges. This design allows the clipboard to fold into a compact form for transport and unfold into a state with a "substantially constant and consistent thickness" to provide a flat writing surface (’812 Patent, col. 2:55-59). The specific arrangement of the hinges is a key aspect of the design, intended to facilitate this transition while maintaining structural integrity (’812 Patent, col. 4:1-24).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to improve upon prior foldable clipboards by using a specific hinge configuration that allows for a more compact folded state and a smoother, more stable writing surface when unfolded, addressing a long-felt need for portable and storable professional tools (’812 Patent, col. 2:33-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s non-infringement and invalidity arguments focus on independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- A foldable clipboard comprising a top, middle, and bottom support panel.
- A first hinge coupling the top and middle panels, including a first and second hinge plate.
- A second hinge coupling the middle and bottom panels, including a third and fourth hinge plate.
- The first hinge plate is positioned outward from the top panel by a "first distance."
- The second hinge plate is positioned outward from the middle panel by a "second distance."
- The third hinge plate is positioned outward from the middle panel by the "first distance."
- The fourth hinge plate is positioned outward from the bottom panel by the "second distance."
- Critically, "the first distance is different from the second distance."
- The clipboard can transition between folded and unfolded configurations where the combined upper surface has a "substantially constant and consistent thickness."
- The complaint notes that features recited in other independent and dependent claims are also anticipated or rendered obvious by the cited prior art (Compl. ¶35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Clipboard Products" sold by Plaintiffs Changsha Wanweixin Trading Co., Ltd. (under the store name “Trustnice US”) and Tengfei Huang (under the seller name “Shintrend”) on the Amazon Marketplace (Compl. ¶12-13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are foldable clipboards (Compl. ¶23). The central technical feature distinguished by the Plaintiff is that "the distance of each hinge plate on each support panel of Plaintiffs' Clipboard Products is a constant distance" (Compl. ¶23).
- The complaint asserts that the Amazon Marketplace is the Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel into the United States," making the product listings critical to their business and ability to compete in the U.S. market (Compl. ¶16-17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The table summarizes the Plaintiff's argument that its product does not meet at least one key limitation of the asserted claim.
’812 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a top support panel with a top upper surface...a middle support panel with a middle upper surface; a bottom support panel with a bottom upper surface; a first hinge...a second hinge... | The complaint implies the accused products are foldable clipboards with top, middle, and bottom panels connected by hinges, but does not provide specific structural details. | ¶23 | col. 19:21-46 |
| wherein the first hinge plate is positioned outward from a first side portion of the top support panel an amount substantially equal to a first distance...wherein the fourth hinge plate is positioned outward from a first side portion of the bottom support panel an amount substantially equal to the second distance, wherein the first distance is different from the second distance. | Plaintiff alleges its products do not meet this limitation because the distance of each hinge plate on each support panel is a "constant distance," which is different from the claim's requirement that the first and second distances be different from each other. | ¶23 | col. 19:35-50 |
| wherein the clipboard is capable of transitioning between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration... | The complaint implies the product is foldable but provides no specific detail on its transition mechanism. | ¶23 | col. 19:51-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central dispute articulated in the complaint is whether the accused products, which allegedly use a "constant distance" for hinge placement, fall outside the literal scope of Claim 1, which explicitly requires that "the first distance is different from the second distance."
- Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to establish the actual dimensions and hinge placement on the accused "Clipboard Products"? The complaint makes a conclusory statement about this feature without providing diagrams, measurements, or other technical proof.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "wherein the first distance is different from the second distance"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the explicit basis for the Plaintiff's non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶23). The entire infringement case may turn on whether this negative limitation is found in the accused products. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a clear, specific structural requirement that appears to be the primary point of differentiation alleged by the Plaintiff.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer language that broadens this term. It is presented as a definitive structural constraint. A party might argue that "different" simply means "not identical," allowing for any non-zero difference, however small.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that this differential offsetting of the hinges is what allows for a "more compact hinge arrangement" and "a total reduced width of the clipboard" (’812 Patent, col. 12:55-58). This purpose could be used to argue that "different" requires a meaningful, functional difference in distance, not a trivial one. The specific dimensions provided in an embodiment further detail this difference (e.g., hinge plates being 0.035 inches outward vs. 0.107 inches outward) (’812 Patent, col. 16:46-60).
The Term: "substantially equal to"
- Context and Importance: This term appears four times in the dispositive limitation of Claim 1 alone. The degree of variance permitted by "substantially" will determine how the "first distance" and "second distance" are measured and compared, directly impacting the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states that numerical values can be modified by "about" or "approximately" and can be "increased or decreased by approximately 5%" (’812 Patent, col. 6:10-23). A party could argue this provides a numerical range for what "substantially" means.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes the goal of creating a "substantially constant and consistent thickness" when unfolded (’812 Patent, col. 2:57-59). A party could argue that "substantially equal" must be construed in a way that achieves this functional outcome, potentially limiting the term to a narrower range of deviation than a generic 5%.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they do not indirectly infringe the ’812 Patent, but the complaint does not provide specific facts related to this issue beyond a general denial (Compl. ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for willful patent infringement. However, in its prayer for relief, it requests that damages for Defendant's "improper acts" be "doubled and/or trebled due to the willful and exceptional nature of the case" (Compl. Prayer ¶8). This allegation is based on the claim that the Defendant made a "baseless infringement report" to Amazon (Compl. ¶24) and that its actions were "wanton, willful and malicious" in the context of the tortious interference claim (Compl. ¶45).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Is the limitation "the first distance is different from the second distance" a strict requirement that is absent from the accused products, as Plaintiffs allege, or can Defendant show that the accused products meet this limitation literally or under the doctrine of equivalents?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of invalidity: Plaintiffs have presented detailed arguments that U.S. Patent No. 11,685,182 (Khaliq) and Chinese Patent No. CN307035753S (Wan) each anticipate every element of Claim 1 of the ’812 Patent (Compl. ¶31-34). The case will likely involve a deep-dive into whether these prior art references disclose the claimed invention, particularly the specific hinge-offset configuration.
- A central procedural and damages question will revolve around the propriety of the Defendant's enforcement actions through the Amazon APEX program. The court will have to address whether Defendant's infringement assertions were "baseless," as alleged by Plaintiffs, which will influence the resolution of the tortious interference claim and the request for enhanced damages and attorney's fees.