DCT

2:25-cv-10889

Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-10889, D.N.J., 06/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants target consumers in the United States, including New Jersey, by operating interactive e-commerce stores, offering shipping to New Jersey, and accepting payment in U.S. dollars.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce operators sell unauthorized neck fans that infringe its U.S. utility and design patents covering wearable fan technology and appearance.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to personal, hands-free cooling devices, specifically wearable neck fans, a product category that has gained popularity in the consumer electronics market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings. The asserted utility patent, U.S. 11,920,602, is a continuation of several prior U.S. and international applications, indicating a sustained patent prosecution strategy in this technology area.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-10-25 ’602 Patent Priority Date
2020-09-07 ’932 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2021-08-24 ’932 Patent Issue Date
2024-03-05 ’602 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,920,602 - "Neck Fan"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,920,602, “Neck Fan,” issued March 5, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon existing neck fans that often feature exposed fan blades, which can pose a safety risk (e.g., hair entanglement), and that produce a concentrated airflow that may be uncomfortable for the user (’602 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a wearable neck fan with an enclosed body, formed by an inner and outer shell, that houses a plurality of internal fan assemblies. This structure creates an internal air duct (’602 Patent, col. 1:43-53). Air is drawn into the device through inlets and then expelled through a series of air outlets distributed along the body, creating a more diffuse and comfortable cooling effect around the user's neck (’602 Patent, col. 3:13-30).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to enhance both safety, by enclosing all moving parts, and user comfort, by replacing a direct, high-velocity stream of air with a distributed, gentler airflow.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • An "inner shell" disposed near the neck and an "outer shell" connected to it, which together define a "receiving space".
    • A "plurality of fan assemblies" received within that "receiving space".
    • The "inner shell" defines a "plurality of air inlets" located near and facing towards the neck.
    • The "receiving space" serves as an "air duct" communicating with the air inlets.
    • Each fan assembly is configured to intake air through the corresponding "air inlets" and drive it into the "air duct".
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case proceeds (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Design Patent No. D928,932 - "Fan"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D928,932, “Fan,” issued August 24, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '932 Patent does not solve a technical problem but rather protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a neck fan as depicted in its figures. Key ornamental features include the overall U-shape of the device, the continuous band of slit-like air outlets along the top surface, the smooth, unadorned side surfaces, and the circular end caps that house the fan mechanisms (’932 Patent, Figs. 1-16).
  • Technical Importance: Not applicable to a design patent; its value is purely aesthetic and brand-distinguishing.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the patent (Compl. ¶37-38).
  • The claim is for "The ornamental design for a fan, as shown and described" (’932 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Unauthorized Products" are various models of wearable neck fans sold by the Defendants through e-commerce storefronts on platforms including Amazon (Compl. ¶3, ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are neck fans that are functionally and aesthetically similar or identical to Plaintiff's own commercial products, which embody the patented inventions (Compl. ¶7, ¶19-20). These products are allegedly sold by a network of sellers who use fictitious aliases to conceal their identities while targeting consumers in the United States and New Jersey (Compl. ¶2, ¶9). Plaintiff alleges its own products are popular and that it is a "top seller of neck fans on Amazon," placing the dispute in a competitive market (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in its Exhibit 3, which was not publicly filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations.

'602 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Unauthorized Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’602 Patent because they "meet each and every element of Claim 1" (Compl. ¶28). The infringement theory is that the accused neck fans are constructed with an inner and outer shell that form an air duct, contain multiple fan assemblies, and draw air in through inlets located on the inner, neck-facing surface to be expelled elsewhere, thereby practicing the claimed invention (Compl. ¶29).

'932 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Unauthorized Products infringe the ’932 Patent because they "are substantially similar to, or at least a colorable imitation of the claimed design" (’932 Patent, Figs. 9-16; Compl. ¶37). The core of this allegation rests on the "ordinary observer" test, suggesting that a typical consumer would be deceived by the similarity in appearance. The complaint provides visual evidence to support this claim. A side-by-side comparison image shows two different accused products, designated Item No. 1-15 and Item No. 2-2, to illustrate that their product designs are identical (Compl. p. 9). The complaint further alleges that numerous other product versions sold by Defendants are also identical in design (Compl. ¶20).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "inner shell" (from '602 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The location of the "air inlets" on the "inner shell" is a critical limitation of Claim 1. The construction of "inner shell" will determine whether accused products with air inlets on their ends, sides, or outer surfaces meet this element. Practitioners may focus on this term because the location of air intake is a key design variable in such devices.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language broadly defines the term by its position: "disposed near the neck" (’602 Patent, col. 15:11). This could be argued to encompass any surface generally oriented toward the user.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures distinguish the inner wall (101) from the top wall (103), bottom wall (104), and outer wall (102), suggesting "inner shell" refers to a specific component forming the inside curve of the device, not all user-facing surfaces (’602 Patent, col. 5:60-67; Fig. 5).

Term: "air inlets" (from '602 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the "air inlets" to be on the "inner shell". In contrast, dependent Claim 8, which is not asserted, explicitly adds a limitation for "another plurality of air inlets, disposed away from and facing away from the neck." The dispute may center on whether Claim 1 reads on devices that only have air inlets on their outer surfaces.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "air inlets" simply means any opening for air intake, and its location on the "inner shell" does not preclude the existence of other inlets elsewhere.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The doctrine of claim differentiation may be invoked. The fact that a separate, dependent claim (Claim 8) was required to add outer air inlets suggests that the scope of the independent claim (Claim 1) does not include them. This would narrow Claim 1 to devices that have, at a minimum, air inlets on the inner shell.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint makes passing references to indirect infringement (Compl. ¶27, ¶36) and aiding and abetting (Compl. p.20, ¶1(b)). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for inducement (e.g., citing user manuals that instruct on an infringing use) or for contributory infringement. The allegations focus primarily on direct infringement through making, using, and selling.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶32, ¶41). This is supported by allegations that Defendants operate "knowingly and willfully" as part of a concerted effort (Compl. ¶27) and utilize tactics to evade intellectual property enforcement, such as communicating in online chat rooms about new lawsuits (Compl. ¶22).

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

  • A central issue for the design patent claim will be one of visual comparison: Applying the ordinary observer test, are the accused products "substantially the same" as the '932 Patent's claimed design, or do sufficient differences exist to distinguish them in the eyes of a consumer, thereby avoiding infringement?
  • A key evidentiary question for the utility patent will be one of technical fact-finding: Do the accused neck fans incorporate the specific air intake architecture required by Claim 1 of the '602 Patent? The case may turn on evidence demonstrating whether the primary air inlets on the accused products are located on the "inner shell... facing towards the neck," as the claim requires.
  • A significant procedural challenge will be enforcement and attribution: Can the Plaintiff successfully pierce the anonymity of the numerous e-commerce operators listed in Schedule A and prove they are an interrelated operation? The practical ability to identify, serve, and collect a potential judgment from these disparate online sellers will likely be as critical as the underlying merits of the infringement claims.