Zhujitop Hardware Tools Co Ltd v. T Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zhujitop Hardware Tools Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang, China)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdictions Unknown)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Palmer Law Group
• Case Identification: 0:21-cv-62458, S.D. Fla., 12/07/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants' alleged targeting of consumers in Florida through interactive e-commerce stores, offering shipping to the district, and completing sales to Florida residents.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous, unidentified e-commerce operators are selling hand tools that infringe a patent covering a dual-function tool for fastening and cutting clamping bands.
• Technical Context: The technology pertains to mechanical hand tools used in construction, plumbing, and other trades for connecting pipes or other objects using metal clamping bands.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a "Schedule A" action, a procedural mechanism often used to target a large number of anonymous online sellers of allegedly infringing goods, typically seeking an early temporary restraining order and discovery from third-party e-commerce platforms. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,875,158 - "Tool with Function of Fastening and Cutting Clamping Band," Issued Dec. 29, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art methods for connecting items with clamping bands were inefficient because they required two separate tools—one for fastening the clamp and another for releasing or cutting it—which was inconvenient and increased the weight and cost for an operator ('158 Patent, col. 1:34-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single tool that combines both fastening and cutting functions. This is achieved through a "switching structure" built into the tool's head. The core of this structure is an "eccentric shaft" that can be rotated to adjust the distance between the two pliers heads when they are clamped shut. This adjustment changes the tool's function, allowing it to transition between a fastening state and a cutting state without requiring a separate device ('158 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:48-53).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention seeks to provide a lighter, less expensive, and more efficient single-tool solution for a common task in various trades, thereby simplifying the work of an operator ('158 Patent, col. 2:49-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶1). The patent contains three independent claims: 1, 10, and 11. Claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • a left pliers head;
  • a right pliers head and the left pliers head cooperating with each other to fasten and cut the clamping band; and
  • a switching structure, disposed at the left pliers head and the right pliers head to adjust a distance between the left pliers head and the right pliers head when the left pliers head and the right pliers head clamp tightly;
  • wherein the switching structure comprises a cover plate, a cover plate shaft and an eccentric shaft, the cover plate is disposed at one side of the left pliers head and the right pliers head, the cover plate shaft and the eccentric shaft are disposed at the left pliers head and the right pliers head, respectively, the eccentric shaft is eccentrically and rotatably disposed, and one end of the cover plate shaft is provided with a positioning structure.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "unauthorized and unlicensed products, namely the Tool with Function of Fastening and Cutting Clamping Band" ("Infringing Products") sold by Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores that sell infringing versions of the patented tool to U.S. consumers, including those in Florida (Compl. ¶3, ¶11). These storefronts are described as appearing sophisticated and making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from authorized retailers (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of the accused products, instead alleging that they are "infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's federally registered patent" (Compl. ¶3) and infringe the claims of the '158 Patent (Compl. ¶24). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement without providing an element-by-element analysis or a claim chart. The infringement theory is that the "Infringing Products" sold by Defendants embody the invention claimed in the '158 Patent (Compl. ¶24). The following table summarizes this theory as applied to the elements of independent claim 1.

'158 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused products actually contain the specific mechanism recited in Claim 1. The complaint lacks any reverse engineering or detailed product analysis. The case will depend on Plaintiff obtaining and proving that an accused product possesses not just a "switching structure" in the abstract, but one that specifically comprises an "eccentric shaft" that is "eccentrically and rotatably disposed" to adjust the clamping distance.
• Scope Questions: What is the scope of an "eccentric shaft"? The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products' components meet the definition of this term as it is used and described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "switching structure"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patent, purportedly distinguishing it from prior art. The definition of this term will be critical, as it will determine whether infringement requires the specific mechanical arrangement shown in the patent's figures or could encompass a broader range of mechanisms that achieve the same dual-function result.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides a functional definition: a structure "to adjust a distance between the left pliers head and the right pliers head when the...pliers head clamp tightly" ('158 Patent, col. 5:47-50). Plaintiff may argue this language covers any structure performing this function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 further defines the structure as comprising specific components: "a cover plate, a cover plate shaft and an eccentric shaft" arranged in a particular way ('158 Patent, col. 5:51-59). The specification consistently describes the invention in terms of this single embodiment ('158 Patent, col. 3:18-21; FIG. 3). A defendant would likely argue that the term "switching structure" is limited to this disclosed embodiment and its equivalents.

• The Term: "eccentric shaft"

  • Context and Importance: This component is the heart of the "switching structure" in Claim 1. Proving that an accused device contains an "eccentric shaft" will be a key element of Plaintiff's infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be case-dispositive if the accused products use a different type of adjustment mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself implies a shaft rotating around an axis offset from its center. Plaintiff could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any such shaft used to create adjusting movement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the eccentric shaft (4) in conjunction with other features like a "limiting slot (16)" that cooperates with a "switching sheet (8)" and a "limiting block (19)" that cooperates with a "limiting hole (18)" to fix its position ('158 Patent, col. 4:6-11). A defendant may argue that these features are necessary aspects of the claimed "eccentric shaft," potentially limiting the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of "contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe" (Compl. ¶26). The factual basis is an allegation that Defendants "have notice of or knew of the '158' patent" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not allege specific facts to support the required element of intent, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants' conduct was "willful and deliberate" because they had "notice of or knew of the '158' patent" and continued to infringe (Compl. ¶27). The complaint also characterizes Defendants' conduct as "unethical and injurious commercial conduct" (Compl. ¶25).

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

1. An initial and central question is evidentiary: given the anonymous nature of the Defendants, can the Plaintiff first identify the sellers and then produce evidence demonstrating that the specific tools they are selling contain the complete mechanical assembly recited in Claim 1, most notably the "eccentric shaft" that is "eccentrically and rotatably disposed"?

2. A core legal issue will be one of claim scope: will the term "switching structure" be construed broadly based on its functional description, or will it be limited to the specific embodiment detailed in the patent, which includes the cover plate, cover plate shaft, and eccentric shaft? The outcome of this construction will likely define the boundaries of infringement.