DCT
1:25-cv-02963
Wheelkids Inc v. Guangzhou Longya Trade Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wheelkids Inc (California)
- Defendant: Guangzhou Longya Trade Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Edward H. Rice, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02963, N.D. Ill., 03/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant, a Chinese corporation, is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its puzzle tables do not infringe Defendant’s design patent and that the patent is invalid, following Defendant’s use of Amazon’s intellectual property reporting system to have Plaintiff's products delisted.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of puzzle tables, a consumer product category within the hobby and games market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Defendant previously filed a lawsuit asserting the same patent against Plaintiff in the same district, which was voluntarily dismissed. Following the dismissal, Defendant allegedly filed an infringement claim through Amazon's internal process, prompting this declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-01-27 | '339 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-08-01 | Alleged prior art puzzle tables available for sale on Amazon.com |
| 2022-04-22 | '339 Patent application filed |
| 2023-05-16 | U.S. Patent No. D986,339 issues |
| 2024-05-21 | Defendant files prior litigation against Plaintiff |
| 2024-12-12 | Defendant voluntarily dismisses Plaintiff from prior litigation |
| 2025-03-16 | Defendant files Amazon.com infringement claim against Plaintiff |
| 2025-03-20 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D986,339 - Puzzle table
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D986,339, titled "Puzzle table," issued May 16, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '339 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead seeks to protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" ('339 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a puzzle table as depicted in the solid lines of its figures. Key ornamental features include a rectangular, tilting main surface, four slide-out side drawers for sorting pieces, and a specific configuration of supporting legs and under-table structural elements ('339 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 9). The claim is for the overall aesthetic impression created by this combination of features ('339 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The protected design provides a distinct aesthetic in the consumer market for puzzle accessories, which may serve to differentiate the product from competitors.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a puzzle table, as shown and described" ('339 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features shown in solid lines in the patent’s sixteen sheets of drawings, including:
- The overall configuration of a table with a central tilting top and four pull-out side trays.
- The specific A-frame style of the table legs.
- The particular arrangement of support structures on the underside of the table top.
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity as to the patent generally (Compl. ¶¶63-64).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Disputed Puzzle Tables" sold by Plaintiff WheelKids under its "Wheel-Go" storefront on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶6, 28). The complaint identifies the products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs): B0BKZN1D8Q, B0D4YSX37B, and B0DFYFK6MV (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are puzzle tables sold to consumers in the United States through Amazon.com, which the complaint identifies as Plaintiff's primary sales channel (Compl. ¶¶6, 8, 30). The complaint’s non-infringement theory centers on a specific design difference in the support structure on the underside of the table (Compl. ¶¶33-34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its allegations focus on arguing that key differences between the patented design and the accused product would lead an ordinary observer to conclude the designs are not substantially the same.
D986,339 Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Patented Design) | Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for support structures underneath the puzzle table that intersect in what the complaint characterizes as a "T-shape" at the center of the board. An image from the patent's Figure 9 is included in the complaint to illustrate this feature. | The Disputed Puzzle Tables have support structures underneath the puzzle table that intersect in what the complaint characterizes as a "square shape" at the center of the board. A photograph of the accused product's underside is included in the complaint to illustrate this difference. | ¶¶33-34 | '339 Patent, FIG. 9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the "ordinary observer" infringement test is governed by the overall visual similarity of the products as a whole, or if a specific difference in a single design feature—particularly one on the product's underside—is sufficient to defeat a claim of infringement. The complaint asserts this difference is dispositive (Compl. ¶¶32, 43-44).
- Factual Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether the difference between the patented "T-shape" support structure and the accused "square shape" support structure is significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, from being deceived into believing the accused product is the patented design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For design patents, the "claim" is the visual design depicted in the drawings, so traditional construction of written terms is not the central focus. The analysis instead centers on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, as defined by the solid lines in the patent figures.
- The Feature: The under-table support structure.
- Context and Importance: This feature is the lynchpin of the non-infringement argument presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶33-34). The court's assessment of the visual importance of this feature relative to the overall design will be critical. Practitioners may focus on whether this difference, located on the underside of the table, is substantial enough to overcome similarities in more visible portions of the design.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring infringement): A party arguing for infringement might contend that the under-table support is a minor part of the overall aesthetic and that an ordinary observer would focus on the more prominent features like the tilting top, side drawers, and leg style, which may be similar to the accused product.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring non-infringement): The complaint implicitly argues for a narrower scope by highlighting the specific "T-shape" intersection shown in solid lines in Figure 9 ('339 Patent, FIG. 9; Compl. ¶33). A party arguing for non-infringement will assert that this specific, claimed feature is absent from the accused product, which uses a visually distinct "square shape" structure, and this difference is sufficient to avoid deception (Compl. ¶34).
VI. Other Allegations
- Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity: The complaint seeks a declaration that the '339 Patent is invalid as anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (Compl. ¶49). It alleges that "many puzzle table products having designs that were similar" existed on the market before the patent's application date (Compl. ¶38). The complaint provides images and ASINs for two such alleged prior art products sold on Amazon.com as early as August 2021 (Compl. ¶¶39-40).
- Tortious Interference and Exceptional Case: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement claim submitted to Amazon was "objectively baseless" and "meritless," constituting tortious interference with Plaintiff’s business relationship with Amazon (Compl. ¶¶55, 61). Based on these allegations, the complaint seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would permit an award of attorney fees (Compl. ¶66).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual significance: Under the ordinary observer test, is the alleged difference in the under-table support structure—a feature not readily visible during normal use—sufficiently substantial to distinguish the accused product from the patented design, or will the analysis turn on the overall visual impression of the more prominent features?
- A key evidentiary question will be the impact of the prior art: How similar is the patented design to the alleged prior art puzzle tables identified in the complaint? The answer will influence both the patent's validity and the scope of protection afforded to it for the purposes of the infringement analysis.
- A central question for the non-patent claims will be one of objective baselessness: Can WheelKids prove that GZ Long's infringement assertion to Amazon, made after dismissing a federal court action, lacked any plausible basis, thereby supporting the claims for tortious interference and an exceptional case finding?