DCT
4:25-cv-00186
Guangzhou Weisheng Entertainment Products Co Ltd v. Plus Ev Holdings Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Guangzhou Weisheng Entertainment Products Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Plus Ev Holdings Inc (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC; Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00186, W.D. Mo., 03/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant residing in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its perineal massage tool does not infringe Defendant's design patent for a similar device, following Defendant's infringement complaints to Amazon.
- Technical Context: The dispute involves the ornamental design of therapeutic devices, specifically pelvic wands used for perineal massage and pelvic floor muscle therapy.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was initiated after Defendant filed patent infringement complaints with Amazon.com against Plaintiff's product, resulting in the removal of Plaintiff's Amazon product listing.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-04-13 | Prior Art Patent US 7,695,489 Issued |
| 2014-08-26 | Prior Art Patent US D712,057 Issued |
| 2015-01-06 | Prior Art Patent US D720,862 Issued |
| 2019-07-28 | Prior Art Application US 2021/0022949 A1 Filed |
| 2019-07-29 | '286 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-05-28 | '286 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-03-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,029,286 - “PELVIC WAND,” Issued May 28, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '286 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead protects the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, in this case a "pelvic wand" ('286 Patent, Title; Compl. ¶8).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for the pelvic wand depicted in its figures ('286 Patent, Claim). The core visual characteristics include a distinct, curved profile that the complaint characterizes as resembling a "question mark," with a bulbous tip at one end and a handle portion at the other ('286 Patent, FIG. 1, 6; Compl. ¶14). The design's visual identity is established by the particular curvatures, proportions, and surface contours shown in the drawings ('286 Patent, FIG. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: The complaint suggests the design's importance lies in creating a distinct visual identity in the marketplace for therapeutic wands, differentiating it from other designs (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a pelvic wand, as shown and described" ('286 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance of the device as a whole, as depicted in the solid lines of the patent's drawings. Key ornamental features that constitute the claimed design include:
- The overall profile and specific curvature of the wand's body.
- The shape and contour of the therapeutic tip.
- The proportional relationship between the curved shaft and the tip.
- The visual effect of the surface transitions along the body of the wand.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is Plaintiff's perineal massage tool sold on Amazon under the ASIN B0DMFJSQ6S from the "Grownsy Direct" storefront (Compl. ¶1, ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product's ornamental features rather than its function, asserting that its overall shape is central to the non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶13). Plaintiff contends the product’s design has an "S-shape (or a variant of the S-shape)," which it alleges is visually distinct from the patented design (Compl. ¶14).
- The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of a photograph of the accused product and a figure from the '286 Patent to illustrate the alleged differences in their overall shapes (Compl. p. 3).
- Allegations that the removal of the product from Amazon caused "substantial harm" and "loss of revenue" suggest the product has an established commercial presence (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which considers whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product thinking it was the patented design.
’286 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from '286 Patent Design) | Plaintiff's Alleged Non-Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a pelvic wand, as shown and described. | The overall ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's product is alleged to be "sufficiently distinct and plainly dissimilar" from the patented design as a whole. | ¶14 | FIG. 1-7 |
| The overall contour of the patented design. | Plaintiff characterizes the patented design's contour as resembling a "question mark." | ¶14 | FIG. 1, 6 |
| Plaintiff's product is alleged to possess an "S-shape" contour, which creates a different overall visual impression. | ¶14 | ¶14 (photo) | |
| The overall visual impression in the context of prior art. | Plaintiff alleges its S-shaped design is more similar to prior art designs than to the patented design, reinforcing its distinctiveness. | ¶15, ¶16 | N/A |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central dispute concerns the visual scope of the '286 Patent. The key question is whether the patented design, defined by its "question mark-like" curve, is broad enough to be considered substantially the same as the accused product's "S-shape" curve.
- Visual Questions: The case will depend on a factual comparison of the two designs. A court will have to determine if the differences in curvature, proportion, and overall shape are minor variations or if they create a genuinely different visual impression.
- Role of Prior Art: Plaintiff introduces four prior art references to argue that "S-shaped wands" represent a known design space (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a table of figures from these references to support this point (Compl. p. 5). This raises the question of how this prior art will affect the infringement analysis by potentially narrowing the protectable scope of the '286 Patent and emphasizing the differences between the designs.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, there are typically no claim terms to construe in the traditional sense. The analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, as interpreted by the court.
- The "Term": "The ornamental design for a pelvic wand, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire non-infringement analysis depends on the interpretation of the visual scope of the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on how the specific visual features in the drawings, viewed in light of the prior art, define the boundaries of protection. The distinction between the alleged "question mark" shape of the patent and the "S-shape" of the accused product is the central point of contention (Compl. ¶14).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope may emphasize the overall hook-like shape as the dominant visual impression. Further, the patent uses dash-dash broken lines to depict the handle portion of the wand, indicating that this feature forms "no part of the claimed design" ('286 Patent, Description). This disclaimer could support an interpretation where the claim covers the wand's specific curvature regardless of the particular handle design attached to it.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff's argument relies on a narrower interpretation. Evidence for this view would focus on the precise curvature shown in the solid lines of Figures 1, 6, and 7 as the core novel feature of the design ('286 Patent, FIG. 1, 6, 7). This perspective would treat the specific "question mark-like" bend not as a general hook, but as the defining characteristic that distinguishes the design from the prior art and the accused product.
VI. Other Allegations
- Tortious Interference: In addition to seeking a declaratory judgment, Plaintiff brings claims for Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations (Count II) and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Count III) (Compl. ¶¶ 17-31). Plaintiff alleges Defendant intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with its business by making "materially false allegations of patent infringement" to Amazon, which led to the removal of Plaintiff's product listing and resulting economic harm (Compl. ¶20-22, ¶27-30). The viability of these state-law claims may depend on the court's ultimate finding on the federal question of non-infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual distinction: Is the accused product's "S-shape" contour ornamentally distinct from the patented design's "question mark-like" shape, or would an ordinary observer find them substantially the same?
- A key evidentiary question will be the impact of the prior art: To what extent will the prior art designs cited by Plaintiff, which allegedly establish a context for "S-shaped wands" (Compl. ¶15), narrow the perceived scope of the '286 Patent and magnify the visual differences between the patented and accused designs?
- A third question, central to the tort claims, will be one of good faith: Did the Defendant possess a good faith belief that Plaintiff's product infringed the '286 Patent when it filed complaints with Amazon, or were the allegations, as Plaintiff claims, "materially false" (Compl. ¶20)?