DCT
1:23-cv-07716
Wang v. Entities Individuals
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xiaobing Wang and Liangqing Li (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Getech Law
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-07716, N.D. Ill., 09/07/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the unnamed defendants, operating through online storefronts on platforms such as Amazon and Walmart, purposefully target and ship infringing products to residents within the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ "automatic rotating lamps" infringe a patent for a self-contained, motorized rotating decorative object.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to novelty decorative items, such as globes or ornaments, that contain an internal motor and power source, allowing the object's exterior to rotate without a visible external base or power cord.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The defendants are identified only by reference to a non-public Annex A, a common practice in suits targeting numerous, small-scale online sellers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-10-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,827,711 Priority Date |
| 2010-11-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,827,711 Issue Date |
| 2023-09-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,827,711 - “AUTOMATIC ROTATING DECORATION”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional rotating decorations, like globes, as requiring a separate, external housing to contain the drive mechanism and support the rotating object. This arrangement is said to limit the aesthetic design, increase the overall size, and make the product inconvenient to handle (’711 Patent, col. 1:18-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained rotating object where the support, driving device (motor), and power source (battery) are all located inside the rotating body itself (’711 Patent, col. 2:30-35). As illustrated in figures such as Fig. 4, a stationary internal support (4) protrudes through an opening (20) in the rotating body (2) to rest on an external surface. The motor, fixedly connected to the support, then drives the body to rotate around this hidden, stationary axis, creating the illusion of a self-rotating object without a visible base (’711 Patent, col. 2:56-62; col. 3:6-14).
- Technical Importance: This integrated design allows for a decorative object that can rotate automatically on any flat surface without a cumbersome and aesthetically limiting external stand or housing (’711 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (’711 Patent, col. 4:26-67; Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A rotating body with an opening
- A support exposed to the opening
- A driving device connecting the support, which includes a motor body and a battery seat
- A transmission member connecting the driving device and the rotating body
- The support, driving device, and transmission member are all received inside the rotating body
- A specific structural arrangement wherein the driving device's output shaft fixedly connects to the support, and a protrusion on the motor body is fixed to the transmission member
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products as "automatic rotating lamps" and "automatic rotating decorations" sold by the defendants through online storefronts (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint provides very limited detail on the functionality of the accused products. It alleges the products infringe because they are "automatic rotating lamps" shown in an exhibit that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶9, referencing Ex. A-1). The only specific technical feature described is that the products contain "a steel ball contact switch... disposed between the battery seat and the motor body," which maps to dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶12). The complaint makes no allegations regarding the products' commercial importance beyond their sale on retail websites (Compl. ¶2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The infringement allegations for Claim 1 are conclusory and rely entirely on a reference to a missing exhibit.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An automatic rotating decoration comprising: a rotating body with an opening being defined therein; | The complaint alleges the "automatic rotating lamps" embody this element, but provides no specific description of the accused product's body or opening. | ¶11 | col. 2:30-31 |
| a support exposed to the opening; | The complaint alleges the presence of this feature without describing its structure or function in the accused products. | ¶11 | col. 2:36-39 |
| a driving device connecting the support, the driving device including a driving body and an output shaft extending from the driving body, the driving body including a motor body and a battery seat electrically connecting the motor body; and | The complaint alleges the presence of this feature without describing the specific driving mechanism in the accused products. | ¶11 | col. 2:59-63 |
| a transmission member connecting the driving device and the rotating body, the support, the driving device and the transmission member all being received in the rotating body, | The complaint alleges the presence of this feature and its internal placement without describing the specific components in the accused products. | ¶11 | col. 2:32-35 |
| wherein... the driving body fixedly connects the transmission member, and the output shaft of the driving device fixedly connects the support... a protrusion is disposed at the motor body facing the support, the protrusion is fixed to the transmission member... and the output shaft extends through the protrusion and is fixed to the support. | The complaint alleges the accused products meet this specific structural arrangement but provides no facts detailing the mechanical linkage within the products. | ¶11 | col. 4:40-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Sufficiency: A primary issue is whether the complaint's bare allegation that the accused products infringe Claim 1, without providing any supporting factual details or the referenced exhibit, satisfies federal pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the actual mechanical structure of the accused lamps. A key question is whether they implement the specific, multi-part linkage required by the final "wherein" clause of Claim 1, which dictates that the motor's output shaft is fixed to the stationary support while a separate protrusion on the motor body is fixed to the rotating transmission member.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent, the following terms may be central.
Term: "support"
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the invention, defining the stationary element around which the device rotates. Its construction will determine whether a wide range of internal anchor points could infringe, or only a structure with the specific characteristics disclosed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes it as "slightly protrud[ing] from the opening" and "substantially forming a portion of the outer surface of the rotating body" (’711 Patent, col. 2:36-41), details that could be used to narrow its scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and Claim 1 requires only that it be "exposed to the opening" (’711 Patent, col. 4:28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the support as having an "outer surface... substantially forming a portion of the outer surface of the rotating body" to achieve "completeness of the outer surface" (’711 Patent, col. 2:38-41, col. 4:46-49). This could be argued to limit the term to structures that are aesthetically integrated with the rotating body's shell.
Term: "all being received in the rotating body"
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the self-contained nature of the invention. The degree to which the claimed components must be enclosed will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether components that are partially exposed or form part of the exterior shell are truly "received in" the body.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase could be interpreted to mean that the components are generally located within the confines of the rotating body's structure, even if parts are accessible or visible from the outside.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to hide the mechanism (’711 Patent, col. 2:56-59), suggesting "received in" requires the components to be substantially concealed from view during normal operation.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. While the prayer for relief includes boilerplate language seeking an injunction against those "inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of" the patent, the body of the complaint lacks any factual allegations related to knowledge, intent, or non-staple components that would be required to support such claims (Compl. p. 4, ¶2).
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not allege willful infringement and includes no facts concerning pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent by the defendants.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central procedural question will be one of factual sufficiency: Does the complaint, which asserts infringement in a conclusory manner and relies on a missing exhibit, provide plausible factual allegations sufficient to proceed past a motion to dismiss?
- A key technical question will be one of structural correspondence: Assuming the case proceeds, the outcome will depend on whether the accused "automatic rotating lamps" contain the precise and arguably complex mechanical linkage recited in the "wherein" clauses of Claim 1, specifically the arrangement where the motor’s output shaft is fixed to the stationary support while the rotating body is driven via a separate protrusion on the motor.