DCT
1:24-cv-03851
Shenzhen Kangxianju Intelligent Mfg Technology Co Ltd v. New Century Products Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Kangxianju Intelligent Manufacturing Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: New Century Products Limited (Taiwan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03851, N.D. Ill., 05/10/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the district because a significant portion of the actions giving rise to the case occurred there, and it is where the effect of the Defendant's conduct was felt.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an accused infringer, seeks a declaratory judgment that its wagon stroller products do not infringe Defendant’s patent on a foldable baby stroller and that the patent-in-suit is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the mechanical design of foldable baby strollers, a consumer product category where features like collapsibility, stability, and ease of use are key market differentiators.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this action was precipitated by Defendant's patent infringement reports to Amazon.com concerning Plaintiff's products, which resulted in the delisting of those products from the online marketplace.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-01-02 | ’588 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2019-11-05 | ’588 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-02-23 | Accused Products on sale "since at least" this date |
| 2024-05-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,464,588 - “Foldable Baby Stroller” (Issued Nov. 5, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that many contemporary baby strollers cannot be folded conveniently and may lack structural stability, which is a critical safety concern for products used by children (’588 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a foldable baby stroller with a specific folding assembly designed for improved stability and convenient folding. The core of the design is a pair of "lateral folding holders," each of which is constructed from a specific arrangement of an "upper-front fence tube," a "lower-front fence tube," an "upper-back fence tube," and a "lower-back fence tube." These tubes are pivotally connected between the wheel holders and a central "middle holder," which itself contains upper and lower folding joints that facilitate the collapsing mechanism (’588 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-68).
- Technical Importance: This mechanical arrangement purports to solve the stability problem by creating a rigid frame when unfolded, while allowing for a compact, folded state for storage and transport (’588 Patent, col. 5:25-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses its non-infringement arguments on independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A front wheel assembly and a rear wheel assembly.
- A folding assembly with two "lateral folding holders."
- Each lateral folding holder comprises an "upper-front fence tube," a "lower-front fence tube," an "upper-back fence tube," a "lower-back fence tube," and a "middle holder."
- The middle holder itself comprises an "upper folding joint," a "lower folding joint," and a "support stand rod."
- A specific pivotal connection scheme where the front ends of the front fence tubes connect to the front wheel holder, the rear ends of the front fence tubes connect to the folding joints, the rear ends of the back fence tubes connect to the rear wheel holder, and the front ends of the back fence tubes connect to the folding joints.
- The complaint notes that since the independent claim is not infringed, no dependent claims are infringed (Compl. ¶16). It also seeks a declaration of invalidity for all ten claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 22-31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Plaintiff’s "wagon strollers" sold under the "Cochildor" storefront on Amazon.com, identified by ASINs B0CWD36HX7 and B0CWD6VNPT (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint provides limited technical details about the accused products' operation. Instead, it focuses on what the products allegedly are not. The complaint asserts that the "wagon strollers do not use tubes" and that "nothing even arguably similar to the claimed tubes connects to the front or rear wheel holders" (Compl. ¶17).
- The complaint alleges that the Amazon Marketplace is Plaintiff's "primary sales channel into the United States," and the delisting of the products due to Defendant's infringement report has caused significant commercial harm (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes the Plaintiff's key assertions for why its products do not meet the limitations of the patent's claims.
’588 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| each lateral folding holder comprises an upper-front fence tube, a lower-front fence tube, an upper-back fence tube, a lower-back fence tube and a middle holder | Plaintiff's product does not use tubes. | ¶17 | col. 6:2-5 |
| front ends of the upper-front fence tube and the lower-front fence tube are pivotally connected to the front wheel holder respectively . . . rear ends of the upper-back fence tube and the lower-back fence tube are pivotally connected to the rear wheel holder respectively | In Plaintiff's product, nothing even arguably similar to the claimed tubes connects to the front or rear wheel holders. | ¶17 | col. 6:5-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute appears to be definitional. The case raises the question of whether the structural components of the Plaintiff's wagon stroller constitute "fence tubes" within the meaning of the claim language, even if the Plaintiff asserts its "product does not use tubes."
- Technical Questions: A central factual question for the court will be to determine the actual mechanical structure of the accused strollers. Without visual or technical evidence in the complaint, it is unclear how the Plaintiff's stroller frame is constructed and whether any of its components are pivotally connected to the wheel holders in a manner that could be argued to be equivalent to the claimed structure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "fence tube"
Context and Importance
This term is central to the non-infringement dispute. The Plaintiff’s entire non-infringement argument, as pled, rests on the assertion that its products "do not use tubes" (Compl. ¶17). The construction of this term—whether it is limited to a specific type of structure or can be read more broadly—will likely be dispositive of the infringement question.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent does not explicitly define "tube," so the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might encompass various elongated structural members, not just hollow cylinders. The use of the modifier "fence" suggests a functional aspect—forming part of an enclosure—rather than a purely structural one.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification consistently refers to these elements as "tubes" (e.g., "upper-front fence tube 31") and the figures depict them as distinct, rod-like structures (’588 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:4-7). A party could argue this consistent depiction limits the term "fence tube" to structures that are structurally similar to those shown in the preferred embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement "either directly or indirectly" but does not plead any specific facts relating to inducement or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶15).
Invalidity
The complaint includes a detailed invalidity count, alleging that all claims of the ’588 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 (Compl. ¶21). The Plaintiff provides numerous combinations of prior art references against each of the ten patent claims. For example, claim 1 is alleged to be anticipated (§ 102) by three separate references ("Choi 491," "Austin," or "Takeda") (Compl. ¶22). Similarly, dependent claims are challenged with multiple alternative combinations of references for obviousness (§ 103) (Compl. ¶¶ 23-31). This structure suggests an aggressive, multi-pronged validity challenge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "fence tube", which is described and depicted in the patent as a series of distinct rods, be construed to read on the structural members of the Plaintiff's wagon-style stroller? The outcome of the non-infringement claim hinges on whether the accused product's frame components fall within the scope of this term.
- A second central issue will be the viability of the patent against the cited prior art. The Plaintiff has asserted that the claimed invention is anticipated or rendered obvious by numerous prior art references. A key question for the court will be whether the specific arrangement of pivotally connected tubes and folding joints recited in claim 1 was truly novel and non-obvious at the time of invention, or if it was already disclosed or suggested by references such as 'Austin' or 'Choi 491.'