DCT

1:23-cv-07764

Kids Squad LLC v. Guangzhou Hui De E Trade Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-07764, S.D.N.Y., 09/01/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendants are foreign entities engaged in infringing activities, including advertising, offering to sell, and selling products to consumers in New York, thereby causing harm within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ bath toy sets infringe a patent related to a soft, squeezable, and modular water play toy system.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns children's bath toys, specifically modular systems of containers and pipes that can be reconfigured to create different water flow paths.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of the patent-in-suit and their alleged infringement via email in "early July 2023" and a subsequent formal letter on August 15, 2023. These pre-suit communications are asserted as a basis for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-01-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,684,863 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2023-06-27 U.S. Patent No. 11,684,863 Issue Date
Early July 2023 Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendants of infringement by email
2023-08-15 Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly sent demand letters to Defendants
2023-09-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,684,863 - “Soft and squeezable water play toy”, Issued June 27, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background suggests a need in the art for improved bath toys beyond existing options, implying a lack of toys that are sufficiently versatile, interactive, and easy to manage for both children and parents (’863 Patent, col. 2:66-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular bath toy set composed of soft, squeezable containers and various interconnecting pipes (’863 Patent, Abstract). These components, including bulb-shaped containers and T-shaped pipes, can be mounted to a wall and arranged in numerous configurations, allowing a child to pour water into the top and observe it flowing through the user-created system, as illustrated in Figure 1 (’863 Patent, col. 6:1-10; Fig. 1). The design aims to be easy to assemble, clean, and reconfigure, providing an engaging and educational play experience (’863 Patent, col. 2:7-14).
  • Technical Importance: The invention combines the features of soft, safe materials with a modular, reconfigurable design, intended to provide a more dynamic and creative play opportunity compared to static bath toys (’863 Patent, col. 2:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint specifically asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A bath toy set comprising:
    • a plurality of soft and squeezable containers, each with a body, an inlet, and an outlet;
    • the inlet extends from at or near the top of the body and the outlet extends outward at or near the bottom;
    • each container has a mounting member for wall connection;
    • a plurality of connecting pipes;
    • wherein at least one connecting pipe connects the outlet of one container to the inlet of a second container, allowing water to flow between them.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and prays for relief for infringement of the "Bath Toy Patent," reserving the right to assert other claims, including independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶50; Prayer for Relief ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Products are bath toy sets sold by the four named Defendants through separate Amazon storefronts under the names BNLLD, WvinYng MRPL (a/k/a Xtan), TERRAMUS (a/k/a Yanwoo), and Gifts2U (Compl. ¶¶31-34).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "virtually identical" to the Plaintiff's patented product (Compl. ¶31). The accused functionality includes a set of "soft and squeezable containers, each with a distinct inlet and outlet," along with a "T-shaped pipe and a connecting pipe used to connect different containers" (Compl. ¶¶37-38). The complaint provides an image from the BNLLD storefront showing an assembled set of multi-colored, bulbous containers connected by pipes and mounted on a tiled wall. (Compl. ¶31). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants are "major competitors" and that the Accused Products are sold in the same channels at a lower price point, causing price erosion for the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶28, 40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’863 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of soft and squeezable containers, each container comprising a body, an inlet and an outlet, wherein said inlet extends from at or near a top of said body, wherein said outlet extends outward at or near a bottom of said body The Accused Products each include "a collection of soft and squeezable containers, each with a distinct inlet and outlet" that corresponds to this limitation. An accompanying image shows multiple bulb-shaped containers. ¶37, ¶51 col. 10:62-65
wherein each container further comprises a mounting member for connecting said container to a wall Each container is alleged to have a "mounting member for wall connection." The product images provided show what appear to be suction cups for wall attachment. ¶36 col. 11:10-14
a plurality of connecting pipes The Accused Products are alleged to "include a T-shaped pipe and a connecting pipe used to connect different containers." ¶38 col. 11:1-3
wherein at least one of said plurality of connecting pipes connects to said outlet of a container of said plurality of containers, and said inlet of a second container of said plurality of containers The complaint alleges that the connecting pipes are "used to connect different containers" and that they attach to the outlet of one container and the inlet of another. ¶38, ¶51 col. 11:3-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the term "soft and squeezable." The patent describes the material as preferably "silicon" (’863 Patent, col. 6:18-19), but the claim language is not so limited. The dispute may turn on whether the material used in the Accused Products meets the functional and material characteristics implied by "soft and squeezable."
    • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the Accused Products are "virtually identical" (Compl. ¶31, ¶32, ¶33, ¶34). A primary factual question will be whether discovery reveals any material or structural differences between the Accused Products and the claimed invention that would negate infringement. For example, the precise functionality and structure of the "mounting member" and "connecting pipes" in the accused devices will be subject to scrutiny. An image from the TERRAMUS storefront shows one of the accused products in its packaging. (Compl. ¶33).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "soft and squeezable"
  • Context and Importance: This term, appearing in independent claims 1 and 11, is a term of degree and central to the infringement analysis. Its construction will determine the range of materials an accused product can be made from while still falling within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical properties of the accused products' materials will be a dispositive factual issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the containers are made of "soft and flexible material such as silicon or any other similar material," suggesting silicon is an example, not a limitation (’863 Patent, col. 2:19-20). The purpose is to allow a user to "squeeze" the container, which could encompass a variety of pliable plastics (’863 Patent, col. 6:19-22; Fig. 4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue the term should be limited by the preferred embodiment, which is described as a "silicon material" (’863 Patent, col. 6:18-19). They may also point to Figure 4, which depicts a hand deforming a container, to argue for a specific degree of squeezability that a more rigid plastic might not possess.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against "indirectly infringing, or inducing or contributing to the infringement" (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶B). However, the body of the complaint and the sole count for relief focus exclusively on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by the defendants' own making, using, selling, and offering for sale of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶30, 50).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’863 patent and their infringement. This allegation is based on Plaintiff's notice emails sent in "early July 2023," a subsequent letter from counsel on August 15, 2023, and Plaintiff's own Amazon listings being marked as "Patented" (Compl. ¶¶41-42, 44, 53). The complaint further alleges that Defendants continued to infringe after receiving this notice, which would constitute post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶59).

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

  • A central issue will be one of factual comparison: are the Accused Products, as alleged, "virtually identical" to the patented invention? The case will likely depend on discovery into the specific materials and construction of the accused toys to determine if they meet claim limitations such as "soft and squeezable."
  • The claim for willful infringement appears to be a core component of the case. A key question for the court will be whether the alleged pre-suit notice was sufficient to establish knowledge and whether the Defendants' subsequent conduct was egregious enough to justify enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
  • A potential legal question involves claim scope: can the term "soft and squeezable," which is described in the patent with reference to silicon, be construed to read on the specific materials used in the accused products, particularly if they are a different type of polymer? The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.