DCT

2:25-cv-04084

Hefei GUANSI Intelligent Technology Co Ltd v. Tassel Toppers LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-04084, D.N.J., 05/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the Defendant, Tassel Toppers, LLC, has its principal place of business in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their graduation cap topper products do not infringe Defendant’s patent, following Defendant’s use of Amazon’s infringement complaint system to have Plaintiffs’ products delisted.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns decorative toppers that can be affixed to graduation caps, a consumer product within the market for academic regalia and accessories.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by Defendant lodging multiple patent infringement complaints against Plaintiffs through the Amazon Marketplace intellectual property enforcement system. These complaints resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings, which Plaintiffs allege constitute their primary sales channel in the U.S. The complaint also includes a state law claim for tortious interference with business relations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,241,526 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2016-01-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,241,526 Issued
2025-03-18 Defendant lodged first Amazon Infringement Complaints
2025-05-06 Defendant lodged additional Amazon Infringement Complaint
2025-05-07 Defendant lodged additional Amazon Infringement Complaint
2025-05-09 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,241,526 - TASSEL TOPPER

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9241526 ("TASSEL TOPPER"), issued January 26, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the desire for graduates to personalize their graduation caps, but notes that common methods like sewing or gluing decorations can be difficult, time-consuming, and may permanently damage the cap, which is often a rental. (’526 Patent, col. 1:29-37). It also notes the difficulty of displaying the modified cap after the ceremony. (’526 Patent, col. 1:36-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a decorated, removable graduation cap topper designed to solve these problems. It consists of a "substantially flat base" with a design on top, which attaches to the cap via "connection means" (e.g., Velcro, non-damaging adhesives) that do not damage the underlying cap. The connection is configured to leave a gap, allowing the cap's tassel to move freely underneath the topper. (’526 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-67).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a system for "easy, convenient, affordable modification of a graduation cap without causing damage to the graduation cap itself." (’526 Patent, col. 1:43-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A removable graduation cap topper, comprising: a substantially flat base having a top surface and a bottom surface, wherein the top surface may include a printed design,
    • wherein the bottom surface includes one or more connection means configured to removably secure said substantially flat base to a top surface of a graduation cap,
    • wherein said graduation cap includes connection means corresponding to said one or more connection means of said topper;
    • wherein a gap exists between the graduation cap topper and the top surface of the graduation cap when the topper is affixed to the graduation cap, such that said gap allows a tassel attached to the graduation cap to be moved along the periphery of the graduation cap, through said gap,
    • wherein the removable graduation cap topper covers at least a central area of the top surface of the graduation cap.
  • The complaint requests a declaration of non-infringement of "any claims of the ’526 Patent." (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Products are various "graduation cap toppers" sold by the Plaintiffs on the Amazon marketplace, identified in the complaint by a list of over twenty unique Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs). (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as cap toppers that attach to graduation caps "with additional adhesive materials or through adhesive layers of the cap topper." (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges this attachment is "permanent or hard to remove" and contrasts this with the patent's requirement for a removable topper. (Compl. ¶32). A visual provided in the complaint shows the Accused Products as a decorative sheet with an adhesive backing. (Compl. p. 8).
  • Plaintiffs state that the Amazon marketplace is their "primary sales channel into the United States" and that delisting caused by Defendant's infringement complaints results in significant commercial harm, including lost sales and diminished product ranking. (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes Plaintiffs' primary arguments for why the Accused Products do not meet the limitations of claim 1 of the ’526 Patent.

’526 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
wherein said graduation cap includes connection means corresponding to said one or more connection means of said topper The complaint alleges that the Accused Products attach via an adhesive layer on the topper itself, and that the graduation caps "do not feature any connection means" to which the topper's adhesive corresponds. ¶28, ¶30 col. 6:1-3
configured to removably secure said substantially flat base Plaintiffs allege that the adhesive on the Accused Products creates a "permanent or hard to remove" attachment, in contrast to the claim's requirement that the topper be "removably secured." ¶32 col. 5:40-42
wherein a gap exists between the graduation cap topper and the top surface of the graduation cap ... such that said gap allows a tassel ... to be moved ... through said gap It is alleged that the Accused Products are "glued to the graduation cap... leaving no gap," and that the tassel moves above the topper rather than underneath it through a gap as claimed. ¶34 col. 6:4-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute concerns the meaning of "connection means corresponding to" the topper's connection means. The case raises the question of whether the plain surface of a standard graduation cap, to which an adhesive on the topper sticks, constitutes a "corresponding connection means" that the cap "includes," as required by the claim.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the Accused Products are "removably" secured. This may depend on the properties of the adhesive used and whether detachment is possible without causing the kind of damage the patent sought to avoid. (Compl. ¶32). Another factual question is whether a "gap" exists when the Accused Products are applied. The complaint's visual evidence, a photograph of an Accused Product with an adhesive backing, is presented to support the argument that the product lies flat against the cap. (Compl. p. 8).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "connection means corresponding to said one or more connection means of said topper"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the dispute. Plaintiffs' core non-infringement argument is that the graduation cap itself has no such corresponding means; the topper simply sticks to its surface. (Compl. ¶28, ¶30). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether a simple adhesive-backed topper falls within the scope of the claim.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists "non-damaging adhesives" and "double sided tape" as potential connection means. (’526 Patent, col. 2:63-65). A party could argue that for an adhesive to work, it inherently requires a "corresponding" surface to adhere to, making the cap surface itself the "corresponding connection means."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires that the "graduation cap includes" this corresponding means. The patent's figures depict distinct connection elements (21) being applied to the cap to interact with the topper's connection means (31), suggesting two interacting components rather than a single adhesive and a bare surface. (’526 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 4:56-64). The use of "Velcro connectors" as an example also supports a two-part system. (’526 Patent, col. 2:63).

  • The Term: "removably secure"

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiffs contend their products are "permanent or hard to remove" and thus do not meet this limitation. (Compl. ¶32). The definition of "removable" will be pivotal.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "removable" could be construed broadly to mean anything not permanently fused or welded, even if removal requires significant effort.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames its objective as avoiding damage to the cap, especially since caps are often rented. (’526 Patent, col. 1:32-35, col. 2:56-57). This context suggests "removably" implies "non-destructively," potentially excluding adhesives that are "hard to remove" or that "prevent permanent damage to graduation caps." (Compl. ¶32).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement from the perspective of an infringement allegation. The complaint requests a declaratory judgment of non-infringement "either directly or indirectly," but provides no specific facts related to indirect infringement theories. (Compl. ¶26). Allegations of "bad faith" are directed at Defendant's enforcement actions on Amazon and form the basis of the tortious interference claim, not a patent-specific willfulness claim. (Compl. ¶39, ¶41).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the phrase "graduation cap includes connection means corresponding to" the topper's connection means require a distinct component on the cap (like one half of a Velcro strip), or can it be satisfied by the mere surface of the cap to which an adhesive layer on the topper adheres?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical fact: are the Accused Products "removably" secured in a manner consistent with the patent's goal of avoiding damage, or does the adhesive used create a functionally permanent bond? This will likely require evidence beyond the pleadings regarding the specific adhesives and materials involved.
  • The case also presents a central question regarding enforcement conduct: did the Defendant's use of Amazon's IP reporting system to delist the Plaintiffs' products constitute tortious interference? The resolution of this claim will likely depend on whether the Defendant's infringement position was objectively baseless, a determination that links directly back to the claim construction and factual infringement questions.