Enan Pianpiao Xiao Le Commerce Co Ltd v. Sud Scrub Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Henan Pianpiao Xiao Le Commerce Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: Sud Scrub Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: TRONFUTURE Law
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01129, N.D. Ill., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: The complaint asserts that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) but does not provide a specific factual basis for this assertion.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its silicone body scrubber products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to a scrubber device with specific bristle arrangements.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns personal cleansing implements, specifically silicone-based body scrubbers, which compete with traditional loofahs and sponges by offering enhanced durability and hygiene.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant submitting patent infringement complaints to Amazon.com against Plaintiff's products, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings and created a reasonable apprehension of litigation for the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,342,971, "SCRUBBER DEVICE AND CLEANSING SYSTEM," issued July 1, 2025 (the "’971 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes an invention intended to be more durable and have a longer use-time than "conventional bath and shower devices," with the stated goal of "mitigating climate change." ’971 Patent, Abstract It also aims to prevent the bacterial growth common in traditional porous devices like loofahs. ’971 Patent, col. 8:15-25
• The Patented Solution: The patented invention is a scrubber device, typically made of antimicrobial-infused silicone, featuring a central body with arrays of scrubbing features ("bristles" or "fins") extending from its surface. ’971 Patent, Abstract A central feature of the design is the arrangement of these bristles into "wave-shaped pathways" that extend radially from the interior to the periphery of the device, with the bristles specifically organized into two alternating sets of different heights. ’971 Patent, col. 16:21-41
• Technical Importance: The combination of a non-porous, antimicrobial silicone body with a specific, multi-height bristle structure is presented as a way to create a more effective, hygienic, and long-lasting personal cleansing tool. ’971 Patent, col. 8:5-25

Key Claims at a Glance

• Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of "any claim" of the ’971 Patent Compl. ¶17 The complaint's non-infringement arguments appear to focus on limitations found in independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • A central body with first and second flat surfaces.
  • A "first array of bristles and a second array of bristles" extending from the first surface.
  • The bristle arrays are arranged in "wave-shaped pathways" extending radially.
  • At least one array has a "raised base" connecting the bristles.
  • The first array has bristles of a "first height" and the second array has bristles of a "second height," where the first height is greater than the second.
  • The first and second arrays of bristles "alternates."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are "silicone body scrubber products" sold on Amazon.com by Plaintiff under the brand name "QiaKeoo" Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Products as having a "unique structural design" that was "independently developed" prior to Defendant’s infringement assertions Compl. ¶¶ 9, 23 This design is alleged to include a "specific Y-pattern scale structure" and a "double-ring center" Compl. ¶9 The Plaintiff asserts these "Y-pattern scales form stable triangular structures intended to prevent deformation," a function it characterizes as "substantially different" from that of the bristles claimed in the ’971 Patent Compl. ¶20 Plaintiff also alleges its products have built "substantial goodwill and a significant customer base" since their launch Compl. ¶11 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, arguing that its products lack at least one essential element of the ’971 Patent's claims. The core of Plaintiff's non-infringement theory is a structural and functional distinction between the claimed "bristles" and the Accused Products' "scales."

’971 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central dispute raises the question of whether the claim term "bristles", arranged in two alternating arrays of different heights, can be construed to read on the "scales arranged in a Y-pattern" that Plaintiff alleges are on its Accused Products. Plaintiff's position suggests its "Y-pattern" is a single, integrated structure, not two alternating arrays.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be to determine the actual structure of the Accused Products. Does the "Y-pattern scale structure" in fact create two distinct sets of scrubbing features at different heights that alternate, as required by claim 1, even if they are interconnected? The complaint's assertion that its design serves a different function ("structural stability") than the claimed invention will be a key point of factual dispute Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "bristles"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "bristles" is critical, as Plaintiff's entire non-infringement case hinges on its argument that its "Y-pattern scales" are not "bristles" within the meaning of the claims Compl. ¶19 The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification uses several terms to describe the scrubbing features, including "fins," "dividers," and "ridges," sometimes using "bristles" as an example of "ridges" (e.g., ’971 Patent, col. 2:13-16). This could support an argument that "bristles" should not be limited to a specific shape but can encompass any raised scrubbing element.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires "a first array of bristles and a second array of bristles" that "alternates" ’971 Patent, col. 16:31-41 The patent's figures, particularly Figure 6, depict rows of discrete, seemingly individual projections. This may support a narrower construction where "bristles" must be individual, finger-like elements, which would lend support to Plaintiff's argument that its interconnected "scales" are structurally different.

• The Term: "wave-shaped pathways"

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the claims require the bristle arrays to follow this specific geometric arrangement. Plaintiff alleges its products have a "Y-pattern scale structure" Compl. ¶9, and whether this pattern falls within the scope of "wave-shaped" is a potential point of contention.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the pathway as an "alternating curved pathway" ’971 Patent, col. 5:61-62, which could be interpreted to cover any non-linear, curving arrangement, potentially including a repeating "Y-pattern."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The clear depiction in Figure 6 of a specific sinusoidal curve could be used to argue that "wave-shaped" is limited to that embodiment, thereby excluding other patterns like the alleged "Y-pattern."

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations related to indirect or willful infringement.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "bristles", which the patent describes as being arranged in two distinct, alternating arrays of different heights, be construed to encompass the "Y-pattern scale structure" that Plaintiff alleges is a single, functionally distinct feature on its products?
2. A central evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional comparison: assuming a claim construction is established, does the accused "Y-pattern scale structure" in fact possess the structural characteristics of two alternating, different-height arrays, and does it function in a manner that is the same or equivalent to the claimed invention? Plaintiff's assertion that its structure serves a different primary function—"structural stability"—will be a focal point of this factual inquiry.