DCT
1:25-cv-07041
Shenzhen Xingyuanfa E Commerce Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Lanhe Tech Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xingyuanfa E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Lanhe Technologies Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-07041, N.D. Ill., 06/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant availed itself of the United States by obtaining a U.S. patent and filing infringement complaints with Amazon, which affected Plaintiff's sales and activities in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its Neck Fans do not infringe Defendant's patent, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, wearable neck fans designed to provide personal cooling while leaving the user's hands free.
- Key Procedural History: The action was triggered by Defendant's infringement reports to Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff’s products from the Amazon marketplace. The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, specifically the failure to disclose a material prior art reference (a Chinese patent) to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-05-13 | ’241 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-09-30 | Alleged Prior Art (CN '072 Patent) Filing Date |
| 2021-07-06 | Alleged Prior Art (CN '072 Patent) Issue Date |
| 2021-07-15 | ’241 Patent Filing Date |
| 2021-11-30 | ’241 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-06-20 | Defendant allegedly reports Plaintiff to Amazon |
| 2025-06-25 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- U.S. Patent No. 11,187,241, "Portable Blowing Device," issued November 30, 2021
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that in existing neck fans, the air channel is often quite large, causing the airflow generated by the fan to become dispersed. This results in weak airflow from the outlets and a poor cooling effect for the user (’241 Patent, col. 1:17-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "wind shield" inside the device's main air channel. This wind shield partitions the channel, creating a smaller "sub-air channel" through which air must travel to the air outlets. By reducing the volume of the channel that the air flows through, the airflow is concentrated and strengthened as it exits the outlets, thereby improving the cooling effect and user experience (’241 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:15-36). The patent's figures, such as Figure 4, show this internal partitioning with the wind shield (40) creating a sub-air channel (231) separate from another cavity (233).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of personal cooling devices without necessarily requiring a more powerful fan or larger battery, focusing instead on airflow management within the device's housing (’241 Patent, col. 2:30-38).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint focuses its invalidity arguments on independent claims 1 and 20 (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
- Independent Claim 1:
- a body for being hung around a neck of a human body, the body comprising an inner side wall defining an inner air inlet and an outer side wall defining an outer air inlet;
- a fan disposed in the body;
- a channel arranged in the body, and the channel extends in a length direction of the body;
- a wind shield is arranged in the channel to divide the channel into a sub-air channel and a receiving cavity;
- air outlets are formed in the body for communicating with the sub-air channel and outside; and
- airflow generated by the fan is capable of entering the sub-air channel via the inner air inlet and the outer air inlet and then exiting the air outlets.
- Independent Claim 20:
- a body for being hung around a neck of a human body;
- a fan disposed in the body;
- a channel is provided in the body, and the channel extends in a length direction of the body and has a side wall surrounding the air channel;
- a wind shield is arranged in the channel and connected with an inner surface of the side wall so that a sub-air channel is formed between the wind shield and the side wall;
- air outlets are formed in the side wall for communicating with the sub-air channel and outside;
- airflow generated by the fan is capable of entering the sub-air channel and then exiting the air outlet; and
- a guide vane is arranged in the sub-air channel.
- The complaint notes that claims 1-20 are rendered obvious or anticipated (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies Plaintiff's "Neck Fans" sold on Amazon under the "CIVPOWER-US" storefront (Compl. ¶¶1, 9). Specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) are listed (Compl. ¶11).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Plaintiff as a seller of high-quality fans, including Neck Fans, on the Amazon marketplace, which constitutes its primary sales channel in the United States (Compl. ¶¶9, 12). The complaint includes a screenshot of the CIVPOWER-US Amazon storefront page, showing a "100% positive" rating over the last 12 months, to establish its commercial reputation and the harm caused by the product removal (Compl. ¶10). This action is framed as necessary for the Plaintiff to remain competitive in the U.S. market for Neck Fans (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Invalidity Allegations
The complaint does not allege infringement but instead seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity, arguing that the claims of the ’241 Patent are anticipated by a prior art Chinese Patent, CN '072. The core technical allegations are summarized below.
’241 Patent Invalidity Allegations (Anticipation by CN '072)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Prior Art Disclosure (from CN '072 Patent) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body configured to be hung around a human neck, comprising an arc-shaped shell. The shell includes an inner side wall defining an inner air inlet and an outer side wall defining an outer air inlet... | The CN '072 Patent is alleged to disclose a body configured to be hung around a neck, comprising an arc-shaped shell with an inner side wall (defining an inner air inlet) and an outer side wall (defining an outer air inlet) for dual-side air intake. | ¶20 | col. 27:1-9 |
| a fan disposed within the body | The CN '072 Patent allegedly discloses a fan assembly located within a storage cavity inside the arc-shaped shell. | ¶20 | col. 27:1-9 |
| a channel arranged in the body and extending along its length direction | The CN '072 Patent is alleged to disclose an internal receiving cavity that runs longitudinally to form an elongated air channel. | ¶20 | col. 25:60-65 |
| a wind shield arranged within the channel to divide it into a sub-air channel and a receiving cavity | The CN '072 Patent allegedly describes a "divider plate" that partitions the internal channel, creating separate airflow paths. | ¶20 | col. 27:1-9 |
| air outlets formed in the body that communicate with the sub-air channel and the exterior | The arc-shaped shell of the CN '072 Patent allegedly includes multiple air outlet holes that connect to the sub-air channels and discharge air outward. | ¶20 | col. 27:1-9 |
| airflow generated by the fan enters the sub-air channel via both the inner and outer air inlets, and then exits through the air outlets | The CN '072 Patent allegedly describes an airflow pathway involving intake through inner and outer air inlets, flow through the partitioned sub-air channel, and exit via the outlet holes. | ¶20 | col. 27:1-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely center on whether the components described in the CN '072 prior art reference meet the specific limitations of the '241 Patent's claims. For example, does the "divider plate" disclosed in CN '072 meet all the structural and functional requirements of the "wind shield" as claimed in the '241 Patent?
- Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be a direct comparison of the structures. For instance, does the "receiving cavity" created by the "divider plate" in CN '072 function in the same way as the "receiving cavity" claimed in the '241 Patent, which the patent describes as housing components like a battery? (Compl. ¶20; '241 Patent, col. 5:39-42).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "wind shield"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central structural element of the invention, responsible for creating the "sub-air channel" that allegedly improves performance. The plaintiff alleges that a "divider plate" in the prior art anticipates this element. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the prior art's "divider plate" falls within the scope of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the term functionally as being "arranged in the channel to divide the channel into a sub-air channel and a receiving cavity" (’241 Patent, col. 27:6-8). An argument could be made that any internal partition performing this dividing function meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "wind shield" (40) as a specific, plate-shaped component that can be an "independent member" or integrally formed, and which forms a cavity (233) for housing a battery (50) and circuit board (55) (’241 Patent, col. 4:39-40, col. 5:39-42). This suggests the term may require not just dividing the channel, but creating a specific type of cavity for housing electronics, a feature that may not be explicit in the prior art's "divider plate."
VI. Other Allegations
- Inequitable Conduct (Unenforceability): The complaint alleges that the '241 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶¶26-34). The specific allegations are that the Defendant knew of the material prior art CN '072 Patent before or during prosecution of the '241 Patent, intentionally withheld it from the PTO, and knew that disclosing it would have prevented the patent from issuing (Compl. ¶¶29, 31, 32).
- Tortious Interference: The complaint includes a count for Tortious Interference with Existing Business Relationships, alleging that the Defendant's "baseless infringement claim" to Amazon was intended to harm the Plaintiff's business relationship with Amazon and its customers (Compl. ¶¶35-42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of anticipation: Does the alleged prior art, the CN '072 Patent, disclose each and every element of the asserted claims of the '241 Patent as they would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art? The outcome will depend on a direct comparison of the disclosures.
- A key question for the unenforceability claim will be one of intent: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant, in failing to disclose the CN '072 patent to the PTO, acted with a specific intent to deceive the patent office?
- The case also raises a procedural question regarding personal jurisdiction: Given that both parties are Chinese entities, the court will have to determine whether the Defendant's actions of securing a U.S. patent and enforcing it through Amazon's U.S.-based platform are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Illinois.