Hezeshi Bingyu Xinxi Keji v. Shibumi Shade Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hezeshi Bingyu Xinxi Keji Youxian Gongsi (China)
  • Defendant: Shibumi Shade, Inc. (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Atlantic Partners Law Group, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04276, N.D. Ill., 04/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant targets and sells products to Illinois residents through interactive e-commerce websites and because Defendant’s patent enforcement actions on Amazon have caused Plaintiff harm in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its beach shade products do not infringe Defendant's patent and/or that the patent is invalid, and further alleges that Defendant's patent enforcement actions on Amazon constitute tortious interference with its business.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to portable, lightweight shading systems, such as beach canopies, that are designed to be at least partially supported by wind.
• Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by Defendant Shibumi Shade filing a patent infringement complaint against Plaintiff Hezeshi through Amazon's e-commerce patent enforcement program, which led to the potential removal of Plaintiff's product listings.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,255,103 - Shading system and method of use, Issued February 22, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art shading systems as often being "ineffective or impractical," citing issues where rigid canopies can be unanchored by wind or where other systems are too "cumbersome to transport or assemble" due to the number of parts involved (’103 Patent, col. 1:31-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a transportable shading system comprising a flexible canopy supported by a singular, sectional frame. The key concept is that the structure is designed to be "at least partially supported by wind" (’103 Patent, col. 2:41-42). As illustrated in Figure 1, a long, arched frame (14) holds up one end of a large sheet of fabric (12), while the rest of the fabric floats in the air, stabilized by the wind, creating a shaded area (20) underneath. An anchor (34), connected by a cord (32), helps secure the structure.
• Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a large shaded area using a minimal, lightweight, and easily assembled structure that works cooperatively with wind rather than fighting against it (’103 Patent, col. 1:38-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent claim 21, though it references non-infringement of "any claim" (Compl. ¶23, 30).
• Independent Claim 21 recites a system with the following essential elements:
  • At least one frame with a plurality of maneuverable sections and an aligning component.
  • A canopy extending between a suspension end and a trailing end, engageable with the frame, and "capable of being supported by the at least one frame at least at the suspension end of the canopy and wind for providing shade to the surface".
  • A cord coupleable to the frame and/or canopy.
  • An anchor coupleable to the cord.
  • A container that can both transport the system components and act as the anchor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement for the entire patent (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Plaintiff’s "beach shade sun canopy shelter," referred to in the complaint as the "Non-Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint identifies a number of specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) for these products (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides very limited technical detail regarding the functionality of the Plaintiff's accused products. It asserts only that the products "do not possess all the elements and limitations of any claim of the ’103 Patent" (Compl. ¶23).
• The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Defendant are direct competitors selling beach shade products through Amazon.com (Compl. ¶3). It further alleges that Defendant sells its own products in the district, establishing the competitive market, and provides a screenshot of an e-commerce checkout page for shipping to an Illinois address as evidence of Defendant's business activities (Compl. ¶13, Ex. C). This screenshot from Exhibit C shows a shopping cart on shibumishade.com with a shipping address in Illinois (Compl. Ex. C).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the Plaintiff’s asserted basis for non-infringement of claim 21, which is the only claim for which a specific, albeit broad, non-infringement theory is provided.

'103 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The primary dispute, as framed by the complaint, centers on the entire canopy limitation. The complaint does not specify which sub-part of the long "canopy" limitation is missing from its product (Compl. ¶30). The central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff's product has a canopy with a "suspension end" and a "trailing end" that is "capable of being supported by the... frame... and wind" as the claim requires.
  • Scope Questions: A key legal question will concern the interpretation of the phrase "supported by the at least one frame... and wind." This raises the question of whether the wind must be an active and necessary component for the canopy to be "supported," or if it is sufficient that the wind simply contributes to its stability. The patent describes the structure as being "at least partially supported by wind," which may become a focal point of claim construction (’103 Patent, col. 2:41-42).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint’s broad challenge to the canopy limitation suggests that the construction of several terms within that limitation will be critical.

• The Term: "capable of being supported by the at least one frame ... and wind"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language is the core of the invention and the focus of the Plaintiff’s non-infringement allegation (Compl. ¶30). The case may turn on whether "and wind" implies that wind is a mandatory element of support, distinct from incidental aerodynamic lift.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term is broad, covering any canopy that is held by a frame and also interacts with the wind. The patent states the canopy is "at least partially aerially supportable by wind," which does not necessarily require the wind to be essential for the structure to remain standing (’103 Patent, col. 8:23-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the conjunctive "and" requires two distinct sources of support: the frame and the wind. The Background section distinguishes the invention from prior art susceptible to being "unanchored by wind," suggesting the invention actively harnesses wind as a structural component, not just an environmental factor (’103 Patent, col. 1:33-34).

• The Term: "canopy"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its physical requirements—such as having a "suspension end" and an "opposing trailing end"—are antecedents for the functional "supported by... and wind" limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the canopy simply as being made of "lightweight materials" like "ripstop, polyester, blackout, light diffusion" material, suggesting it is a general-purpose fabric sheet (’103 Patent, col. 4:8-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and figures require a specific configuration where the canopy has a "suspension end" engageable with the frame and a "trailing end" that is "spaced apart from the portion of the frame" (’103 Patent, col. 10:33-38; Fig. 1). This could be argued to exclude single-piece canopies that are supported in a different manner.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint preemptively denies any form of infringement, stating "Plaintiff does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘103 patent, either directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶27). No specific facts related to inducement or contributory infringement are discussed.
• Willful Infringement: As a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, the complaint contains no allegations of willful infringement. Instead, it alleges the opposite, contending that Defendant's infringement accusations are "baseless and exceptional, thus warranting an award of Plaintiff's attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl. ¶32). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant's actions are intended to "stifle competition" and "extort money" (Compl. ¶1). The complaint also includes a separate count for tortious interference with contract and business relations based on Defendant's enforcement actions on the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶¶33-44).

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

This dispute appears to be in its earliest stages, initiated by an e-commerce enforcement action rather than a traditional federal lawsuit. The key questions that will likely define the case are:

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the limitation "supported by the at least one frame... and wind" require that wind provides a necessary, structural component of support for the canopy, or is it sufficient for the canopy to be held by the frame and merely stabilized by airflow?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff, who has so far only made a broad denial of infringement, provide specific evidence showing a fundamental mismatch between its product's structure and the specific elements of the asserted claim, such as the "suspension end" and "trailing end" configuration?

3. A significant procedural question will be the viability of the tortious interference claim: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the Defendant’s use of Amazon’s established patent enforcement program was a "wrongful" act intended to harm competition, rather than a legitimate, good-faith effort to enforce its patent rights?