DCT
1:25-cv-03453
Lvliang Lishi Linglong Electronic Trade CoLtd v. Junpeng Wu
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lvliang Lishi Linglong Electronic Trade Co. Ltd. et al. (China)
- Defendant: Junpeng Wu (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aronberg Goldgehn Davis & Garmisa
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03453, N.D. Ill., 03/31/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant having caused the shutdown of Plaintiffs' e-commerce stores that cater to Illinois residents, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurring in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, a group of e-commerce sellers, seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe Defendant's patent for a personal massager, following Defendant's use of the Amazon.com patent complaint process to remove Plaintiffs' product listings.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to handheld personal massage devices, specifically concerning the addition of ergonomic handles to improve user grip and control during operation.
- Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by Defendant filing patent infringement complaints with Amazon between February and March 2025, resulting in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings. The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of an earlier patent, a fact Plaintiffs leverage to interpret a claim term they allege is undefined in the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-03-10 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,925,592 |
| 2023-05-29 | Application for U.S. Patent No. 11,925,592 filed |
| 2024-03-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,925,592 Issued |
| 2025-02-20 | Defendant files Amazon complaint regarding the "Maiden" product |
| 2025-03-11 | Defendant files Amazon complaints regarding the "GAME" and "Martino" products |
| 2025-03-31 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,925,592, "Penis Massager" (Issued Mar. 12, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that conventional penis massagers, whose size is dictated by an internal sleeve, can be difficult to grip securely, making them "easy to slip out of the human hand due to vibration" and "inconvenient to use" (’592 Patent, col. 2:27-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention adds at least two handles that extend outwardly from the main housing. These handles can be "designed ergonomically" and are not limited by the size of the internal sleeve, allowing a user to hold the device securely by the handles instead of the vibrating housing, which "facilitates the use" of the device (’592 Patent, col. 2:57-66, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to decouple the device's grip ergonomics from the functional dimensions of its internal components, potentially allowing for more powerful vibration or varied sleeve designs without compromising user control (’592 Patent, col.2:64-col.3:2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 14, and 15 as being at issue (Compl. ¶68).
- Independent Claim 1: A penis massager comprising:
- a housing defining a space therein;
- a sleeve provided in the space of the housing;
- a driving device for driving the sleeve to generate motion;
- at least two handles extending outwardly from the housing, each with a first end and a second end, where the first end is connected to an end of the housing away from the sleeve's open end; and
- at least one button being provided on the first end of at least one of the at least two handles.
- Independent Claim 14: A penis massager with a housing, sleeve, driving device, and at least two handles, "wherein the at least two handles are slidably connected to the housing."
- Independent Claim 15: A penis massager with a housing, sleeve, driving device, and at least two handles, "wherein the at least two handles are rotatably connected to the housing."
- The complaint notes that infringement of dependent claims 2-13, 16, and 17 is contingent on infringement of these independent claims (Compl. ¶¶82, 100, 131).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "GAME," "Maiden," and "Martino" products (collectively, "the Products") (Compl. ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Products are described as male stimulation devices sold by Plaintiffs on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶33, 35, 37).
- The complaint alleges the handles on the Products are distinct from the patented invention. The GAME product's handle is alleged to connect to the housing via two detents that engage with two protrusions, which Plaintiffs characterize as a "fixed" connection (Compl. ¶¶102-104). This image shows the separate housing and handle components of the GAME product, highlighting the protrusions on the housing and detents on the handle's inner ring that facilitate this connection (Compl. ¶103). The Maiden and Martino products are alleged to use a plastic hook-and-loop strap to frictionally engage and fix the handles to the housing (Compl. ¶¶109-110, 117-118).
- Crucially, the complaint alleges the handles on all three Products are made of plastic, lack electronic components, and feature only "decorative molded bumps" or "ridges" rather than functional buttons (Compl. ¶¶75-78, 84-87, 93-96). This image shows a close-up of the GAME product handle, illustrating the raised plastic forms that Plaintiffs contend are merely decorative (Compl. ¶78).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following tables summarize the Plaintiffs' arguments for why their products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.
’592 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (GAME Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...at least one button being provided on the first end of at least one of the at least two handles. | The handle of the GAME product is made of plastic, contains no electronic components, and has only decorative molded bumps that cannot control the device's operation. | ¶¶75-80 | col. 7:8-11 |
’592 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 14)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (GAME Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...wherein the at least two handles are slidably connected to the housing. | The GAME product's handles are "fixedly connected" via detents that engage protrusions on the housing, precluding sliding movement during operation. When not engaged, the handle is entirely separate. | ¶¶102-107 | col. 8:20-22 |
’592 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 15)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (GAME Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...wherein the at least two handles are rotatably connected to the housing. | The GAME product's handles are "fixedly connected" via detents that engage protrusions, precluding rotation during operation. The connection mechanism does not permit adjustment of the handle's angle relative to the housing. | ¶¶125-130 | col. 8:29-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute raises questions of claim scope. Does the term "button" in Claim 1 require an electrical or mechanical function, or could it be construed to cover a purely decorative, non-functional raised feature as found on the accused products? Similarly, do the connection methods of the accused products (detents, straps) fall outside the ordinary meaning of "slidably connected" (Claim 14) and "rotatably connected" (Claim 15)?
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the "decorative molded bumps" on the accused products serve any function related to controlling the device. The complaint alleges they do not (Compl. ¶79). Another is whether the connection mechanisms, such as the hook-and-loop strap shown for the Maiden product, permit the type of movement (sliding or rotation) contemplated by the patent, or if they create a "fixed relationship" as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶¶111, 113). This image shows the strap being used to affix the handle to the Maiden product's housing (Compl. ¶110).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "at least one button" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the non-infringement argument for Claim 1. Plaintiffs allege their products have only "decorative molded bumps," not "buttons" (Compl. ¶¶78, 80). The case may turn on whether these features meet the legal definition of a "button."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links "buttons" to a control function, stating "the user may press the buttons on the handles to control operation of the drive device" and that buttons are used for "controlling operation of the driving device 30" (’592 Patent, col. 4:54-57). This suggests a button must have a functional, operative purpose.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "button" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could potentially encompass any pressable feature, even one without an immediate electrical or mechanical output, if it provides some user interface function. However, the specification provides little support for a purely ornamental interpretation.
The Term: "slidably connected" (Claim 14)
- Context and Importance: This term is dispositive for Claim 14. Plaintiffs argue their products are "fixedly connected," not "slidably connected" (Compl. ¶¶102, 108). Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint explicitly alleges the '592 patent fails to define it, while its parent patent, the '665 patent, does (Compl. ¶¶65-66).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint points to the '665 patent, incorporated by reference, which allegedly explains "slidably connected" members as those that move "in a sliding manner with respect to the components it is connected to in normal operation but without becoming detached" (Compl. ¶66). The '592 patent itself describes embodiments where handles may be "fixed to the housing, rotatably connected..., or slidably connected," treating them as distinct options (’592 Patent, col. 6:38-40). This suggests "slidably" implies a specific type of non-fixed, non-rotating movement.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A defendant could argue that any connection allowing for some sliding motion, even if incidental to attachment or detachment, meets the limitation. The term appears in the claim without further functional qualification, which may support a broader reading not strictly limited by specific embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Baseless and Malicious Enforcement: The complaint does not allege infringement but instead alleges that the Defendant's conduct in filing complaints with Amazon rises to the level of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiffs allege that the "clear and obvious lack of infringement" shows that Defendant had "no reasonable basis" to assert the '592 patent against the Products and that the assertions were made with "malice and an intent to harm Plaintiffs' business" (Compl. ¶¶150-151). These allegations form the basis for Plaintiffs' prayer for attorneys' fees and an injunction to prevent Defendant from continuing to interfere with their business (Compl. ¶¶157-158).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court's determination of two central questions rooted in claim construction:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "button" in Claim 1, which the patent specification links to controlling device operation, be construed to read on the "decorative molded bumps" of the accused products, which Plaintiffs allege are non-functional?
A second key issue will be one of mutually exclusive connection types: The patent claims different connection methods in separate independent claims ("slidably connected" in Claim 14, "rotatably connected" in Claim 15). The court will need to determine if the accused products' attachment mechanisms—such as detents or hook-and-loop straps—constitute a "fixed" connection that falls entirely outside the scope of both the "slidably" and "rotatably" connected limitations as construed.