DCT

1:24-cv-10319

Huiying Health v. Ongshu Tang

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-10319, N.D. Ill., 11/12/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged business activity in the district, including selling products to Illinois residents through an interactive e-commerce store hosted on Temu.com.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant's patent is invalid, following "takedown" notices filed by the Defendant on the Temu e-commerce platform that targeted Plaintiffs' product.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the mechanical design of electronic visual ear picks, which incorporate a miniature camera to allow users to see inside their ear canal during cleaning.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Defendant SONGSHU Tang, the patent owner, filed infringement complaints with the Temu e-commerce platform, which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiffs' product. This action by the patent owner created the "actual justiciable controversy" that forms the basis for Plaintiffs' suit seeking a declaration of patent invalidity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-07-31 "Healthness Ear Wax Removal Tool" allegedly offered for sale (Prior Art)
2020-09-29 "BEBIRD® C3 Ear Cleaner" allegedly offered for sale (Prior Art)
2021-03-01 Plaintiffs allegedly began selling the Accused Product
2024-02-28 '904 Patent Priority Date
2024-07-02 '904 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-24 First takedown notice received by Plaintiffs from Temu
2024-08-02 Second takedown notice received by Plaintiffs from Temu
2024-11-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,025,904, "Camera Assembly of Visual Earpick," issued July 2, 2024.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a problem with prior art visual earpicks where the internal camera module is not "stably fixed" and is "prone to falling into the ear canal," creating a safety risk for the user (ʼ904 Patent, col. 1:15-24).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a specific mechanical assembly to securely mount the camera. It consists of a "sleeve" (the main body) that has an internal "clamping groove", and a "camera module" that includes a "support plate". This "support plate" is designed to be "at least partially inserted into the clamping groove to limit and fix the circuit board assembly" (ʼ904 Patent, col. 1:40-48). This interaction is intended to prevent the camera assembly from detaching and falling out during use.
    • Technical Importance: The claimed structure purports to provide a more reliable and safer method for constructing visual earpicks by preventing the unintended detachment of the camera component inside the user's ear.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint seeks a declaration of invalidity for the patent generally, without specifying claims (Compl. ¶A, p. 10). Independent claim 1 is central to the patent.
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
      • A "sleeve" provided with a "through hole" for a "camera module" to pass through.
      • A "camera module" and a "light-emitting assembly".
      • The "camera module" has a "front end" with a "first convex step" where the "light-emitting assembly" is arranged.
      • The "camera module" comprises a "lens" and a "circuit board assembly".
      • The "circuit board assembly" comprises a "flexible circuit board", a "fixed plate", and a "support plate".
      • A "clamping groove" is arranged at a lower part of the sleeve.
      • The "support plate" has one end vertically fixed below the fixed plate and another end that is "at least partially inserted into the clamping groove to limit and fix the circuit board assembly."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Plaintiffs' "electronic visual ear pick devices," referred to as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶2, p. 2).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the product as an "electronic Ear Pick Scope" that Plaintiffs have manufactured and sold on e-commerce platforms, including Temu, since March 2021 (Compl. p. 4). While technical details of the product's internal construction are not provided, its function is to enable visual ear cleaning. Plaintiffs allege the product has become "commercially successful" and has garnered "favorable customer reviews" (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action for invalidity and therefore does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a claim chart. The action was precipitated by infringement claims Defendant allegedly made to the Temu e-commerce platform, which resulted in "takedown" notices being issued against Plaintiffs' product (Compl. p. 4).

The core of the patent-related count in the complaint is an argument for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness) (Compl. p. 6). Plaintiffs allege that the '904 patent is invalid in light of prior art, including products that were commercially available long before the patent's February 28, 2024 filing date (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges that the "Healthness Ear Wax Removal Tool," offered for sale on Amazon.com on July 31, 2020, "discloses every element of the Asserted Patent" (Compl. p. 6-7). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Amazon product page for this device (Compl. p. 7). A similar allegation of anticipation is made against the "BEBIRD® C3 Ear Cleaner," allegedly sold since September 29, 2020, with a corresponding screenshot provided as visual evidence (Compl. p. 7-8).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute will likely involve claim construction and a factual comparison of the construed claims to the prior art. A primary question for the court will be whether the internal construction of the cited prior art products, such as the "Healthness" tool, contains every limitation of Claim 1, including the specific "clamping groove" and "support plate" mechanism.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on images of commercially sold products as evidence of invalidity. A key evidentiary question is what proof Plaintiffs will offer to demonstrate the internal mechanical structure of these prior art devices. The provided external images and marketing descriptions do not resolve whether the prior art products meet the specific structural limitations recited in the claims of the '904 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "clamping groove"

  • Context and Importance: This term is a critical structural limitation of the claimed invention, defining how the camera assembly is secured within the sleeve. The existence and nature of a corresponding feature in the prior art will be central to the invalidity analysis.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may contend that "clamping groove" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, encompassing any channel or recess within the sleeve that serves to hold or clamp another component.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the groove as being "arranged at a lower part of an inner side of the sleeve" (ʼ904 Patent, col. 3:14-15) and, in one embodiment, at the "tail end of the sleeve" (ʼ904 Patent, col. 4:24-25). Dependent claim 2 specifies "two clamping grooves" that interact with "two lugs of the support plate," suggesting a more complex structure that could be used to narrow the interpretation of the term in claim 1 (ʼ904 Patent, col. 6:5-9).

  • The Term: "support plate"

  • Context and Importance: This component works in conjunction with the "clamping groove" to create the locking mechanism. Its definition is crucial for determining whether the prior art teaches the claimed invention.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the term should cover any plate-like structure that supports the flexible circuit board and inserts into a groove, without being limited to a specific shape.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the support plate as being "vertically fixed below the fixed plate" (ʼ904 Patent, col. 1:43-44). Dependent claim 2 further limits the plate to an "inverted T-shaped structure" with "two lugs" (ʼ904 Patent, col. 6:5-9). A party could use this language to argue for a narrower construction of the term as used in claim 1.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Tortious Interference: In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants intentionally interfered with their business relationships with Temu and its customers by making "objectively baseless infringement claims" to the platform, which were made with "malice and an intent to inflict harm" (Compl. p. 9).
  • Unfair Competition: In Count III, Plaintiffs allege that the same conduct constitutes common law unfair competition, as it was an "intentional and wrongful interference" with Plaintiffs' ability to compete in the market for visual ear picks (Compl. p. 10).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege patent infringement. However, in the context of its tortious interference claim, it alleges that Defendants' conduct was "wrongful and willful" and that they asserted the patent "in bad faith" while "knowing that the Asserted Patent is invalid" (Compl. p. 9). This allegation supports the state law tort claims and may also form the basis for seeking attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of anticipation: Can Plaintiffs produce clear and convincing evidence that the internal mechanical structure of the prior art products cited in the complaint (e.g., the "Healthness Ear Wax Removal Tool") contains every element of the asserted claims of the '904 patent, particularly the specific "clamping groove" and "support plate" assembly?
  • The case may also hinge on a question of bad faith assertion: Did Defendant Tang's enforcement of the '904 patent through Temu's takedown process constitute an "objectively baseless" claim made in subjective bad faith, as alleged in the tortious interference and unfair competition counts? The answer will likely depend on the strength of Plaintiffs' invalidity arguments and could impact whether the case is deemed "exceptional" for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees.