DCT

1:23-cv-14922

Shenzhen Donghongze Trading Co Ltd v. Xebec Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-14922, N.D. Ill., 11/05/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper because Defendant Xebec, Inc. has obtained rights in a U.S. patent and its enforcement actions will affect Plaintiffs' business in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: A group of online retailers seeks a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,395,757 and that the patent's asserted claims are invalid as obvious.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mounting systems that allow auxiliary display screens to be attached to the sides of a primary computer display, such as a laptop screen, to expand the available screen real estate for users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,395,757, was subject to an ex parte reexamination, resulting in the confirmation, cancellation, and addition of various claims. The dispute also arises in the context of an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding initiated by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs, which was paused upon the filing of this lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-11-18 Priority Date for ’757 Patent
2016-07-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,395,757 Issued
2022-01-07 Defendant Xebec, Inc. acquired rights to the ’757 Patent
2023-09-05 Reexamination Certificate for ’757 Patent Issued
2023-09-25 Defendant Xebec, Inc. initiated Amazon APEX process against Plaintiffs
2023-11-05 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,395,757 - "Auxiliary Screen Mounting System"

The analysis considers the claims as amended by the Reexamination Certificate issued September 5, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a desire for auxiliary screens to supplement a primary computer display, particularly for portable devices. It notes that conventional solutions are often "unwieldy to transport" or involve "complex clamping mechanisms" that are expensive and prone to failure with repeated use (’757 Patent, col. 1:28-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a support system for attaching an auxiliary screen. It generally consists of two "mounting members" (brackets) that are placed on the opposing sides of a laptop screen and held in place by a "retaining member" (a strap or tether) that extends between them. At least one of the mounting members is configured to hold an auxiliary screen, effectively "hanging" it from the primary display (’757 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11). The mounting members are shaped to fit over the corner or vertex of the primary screen, using gravity and the tension from the retaining member to secure the system (’757 Patent, col. 2:36-40).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a mechanically simple, lightweight, and adaptable method for temporarily adding one or more screens to a portable computer without complex clamps or permanent modifications (’757 Patent, col. 1:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment concerning independent claims 1, 21, and 32, as well as several dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 38).
  • Independent Claim 1 (as confirmed by reexamination):
    • An auxiliary screen support system for a computing device, comprising:
    • a plurality of mounting members arranged to be disposed on opposing lateral sides of the computing device in use; and
    • a retaining member, wherein:
    • the retaining member extends between the plurality of mounting members, and is configured to hold the plurality of mounting members relative to the opposing lateral sides of the computing device,
    • at least one mounting member is configured to bear an auxiliary screen such that the auxiliary screen is hung relative to the computing device in use, and
    • the retaining member is length adjustable to hold the plurality of mounting members relative to the opposing lateral sides of the portable computing device by resisting separation thereof.
  • Independent Claim 21 (newly added by reexamination):
    • An auxiliary screen support system for a computing device, comprising:
    • a plurality of mounting members arranged to be disposed on opposing lateral sides of the computing device in use; and
    • a retaining member, wherein:
    • the retaining member extends between the plurality of mounting members, and is configured to hold the plurality of mounting members relative to the opposing lateral sides of the computing device,
    • at least one mounting member is configured to bear an auxiliary screen such that the auxiliary screen is hung relative to the computing device in use, and
    • the retaining member is length adjustable to hold the plurality of mounting members against the opposing lateral sides of the computing device by providing tension between the plurality of mounting members.
  • Independent Claim 32 (newly added by reexamination):
    • An auxiliary screen support system for a computing device, the support system comprising:
    • a plurality of mounting members arranged to be disposed on opposing lateral sides of the computing device in use, wherein at least one of the mounting members takes the form of a bracket having a first portion for engagement with the computing device and a second portion depending from the first portion for bearing the auxiliary screen; and
    • a retaining member, wherein:
    • the retaining member extends between the plurality of mounting members, and is configured to hold the plurality of mounting members relative to the opposing lateral sides of the computing device,
    • at least one mounting member is configured to bear an auxiliary screen such that the auxiliary screen is hung relative to the computing device in use, and
    • the retaining member is length adjustable to hold the plurality of mounting members relative to the opposing lateral sides of the computing device by resisting separation thereof.
  • The complaint additionally seeks judgment on dependent claims 2, 4, 15, 22, and 24 (Compl. ¶ 33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused products by name or model number. It refers to them collectively as "Plaintiffs' products" and notes that Xebec has asserted infringement against "three product types provided by the respective plaintiffs" (Compl. ¶ 19). The Plaintiffs are a group of e-commerce companies that sell products on Amazon (Compl. ¶¶ 2-13, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any technical description of the accused products' features or functions. It states that the products are sold and distributed through Amazon, which is the Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel into the United States" (Compl. ¶ 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain a detailed infringement analysis or claim chart from the patentee. Instead, it makes broad, conclusory allegations of non-infringement.

The Plaintiffs' entire non-infringement theory is stated in two paragraphs. The complaint quotes a single limitation from claim 1—"a plurality of mounting members arranged to be disposed on opposing lateral sides of the computing device in use"—and then asserts, without further explanation, that "At least one of the required multiple limitations is not included in Plaintiffs' accused products" (Compl. ¶¶ 35-36). The complaint further states that the other independent claims (21 and 32) include "similar features to those of claim 1" and are therefore also not infringed (Compl. ¶ 37).

Due to this lack of detail, an analysis of the specific points of the infringement dispute is not possible based on the complaint alone. The core contention is simply whether the Plaintiffs' unidentified products practice each and every element of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "length adjustable"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in all asserted independent claims (1, 21, 32). Its construction is critical because it defines the functional nature of the "retaining member." Whether the accused products' retaining members are "length adjustable" will likely be a central point of the non-infringement dispute. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a mechanical adjustment mechanism or if it can be satisfied by the inherent elasticity of a material.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the retaining member can be made from a "flexible and/or elastic material, e.g. a textile material" (’757 Patent, col. 7:14-16). An argument could be made that a material that stretches under tension is inherently "length adjustable."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides more mechanical examples, stating the retaining member "may comprise an adjustment mechanism, e.g. a length adjustment mechanism, such as a ratchet" or a "buckle or other tightening arrangement" (’757 Patent, col. 3:51-53; col. 9:15-18). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct mechanism for changing the member's length, separate from material elasticity.

  • The Term: "mounting members"

    • Context and Importance: This is the core structural element that engages with the primary display. The specific shape and configuration of the "mounting members" define the physical interface of the system. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products' corresponding structures meet the structural and functional requirements of this term as described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims them broadly as "members" and "brackets" (’757 Patent, col. 10:11; col. 10:35-36). The summary suggests they can be "simple... hook-like formation[s]" in some embodiments (’757 Patent, col. 3:36-37).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show a specific structure: a "partial enclosure" or "hood formation" with first, second, and third walls that form a "three-dimensional internal corner" designed to fit the vertex of a display screen (’757 Patent, col. 2:28-46). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a more limited definition than any generic bracket.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  1. A central issue will be patent validity: can the Defendant's patent withstand the Plaintiffs' obviousness challenge? The complaint asserts that the claimed invention would have been obvious in light of a combination of seven prior art references (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29), which will require a detailed, element-by-element analysis by the court.
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement: what is the precise structure and functionality of the Plaintiffs' accused products? As the complaint provides no technical details, the case will depend on evidence establishing what the accused products are and how they operate, followed by a comparison to the claim limitations.
  3. The outcome will likely hinge on claim construction: how will the court define the scope of key terms like "length adjustable"? A broader definition encompassing simple elastic materials may favor the patentee, while a narrower definition requiring a mechanical adjuster may support the Plaintiffs' non-infringement position.