DCT

1:24-cv-02766

Square One Choices Inc v. Zhejiang Junhe Trading Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02766, S.D.N.Y., 06/21/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant sells and offers to sell products throughout the United States, including within the Southern District of New York, and has sufficient minimum contacts with the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Transparent 3D Pen Mat" infringes a patent directed to a grooved silicon mat designed to facilitate the precise creation of 2D and 3D objects with a 3D drawing pen.
  • Technical Context: The technology provides an accessory for the consumer market of 3D drawing pens, aiming to solve the problem of imprecision inherent in free-hand drawing of plastic structures.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventor began selling a product incorporating the invention in November 2017. The patent-in-suit issued in September 2021. The current filing is an Amended Complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-12-29 ’901 Patent Priority Date
2017-11-01 Plaintiff's Inventor Allegedly Begins Selling Product
2021-09-21 ’901 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-01 Alleged Date of Defendant's Knowledge of ’901 Patent
2024-06-21 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,123,901 - DEVICE AND METHOD FOR THE CREATION OF 2D AND 3D OBJECTS BY USING A 3D DRAWING PEN, Issued September 21, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent and complaint identify a key problem with free-hand 3D drawing pens: the "human free hand instability, and consequent lack of precision" makes it difficult to create accurate and correctly-formed 2D and 3D objects (Compl. ¶14; ’901 Patent, col. 2:49-53). This often results in frustration for users whose creations do not match their intended design (Compl. ¶12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a device, specifically a flexible, non-sticky, and transparent silicon mat, featuring grooves cut into its surface (’901 Patent, col. 2:23-34). These grooves serve as a guide and a mold for the hot plastic filament extruded from a 3D pen, containing the filament within defined walls and a bed to ensure the final, cooled object takes a precise shape (’901 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-48). The mat can include various geometric templates and a specialized "fuse-and-join" area to aid in the assembly of more complex objects (’901 Patent, col. 5:4-7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a physical guide system that remedies the imprecision of free-hand operation, thereby enabling hobbyists and other users to build more sophisticated and dimensionally accurate objects than would be possible with a 3D pen alone (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A flexible mat comprising a number of templates.
    • Each template having a surface with a plurality of "template grooves" of predetermined shapes and sizes, which define "walls and a bed."
    • The template grooves are capable of being filled with filament from a 3D pen to form objects and function as a guide and depository for the filament.
    • A "fuse-and-join area" that functions as a base for concentrically placing and joining the objects into a complex 3D object.
    • The fuse-and-join area is characterized by a plurality of "fuse-and-join grooves" with sizes "exceeding the respective predetermined sizes of said template grooves by an extra length."
    • This "extra length" produces an "external edge of the base."
  • The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions and assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are iArtker's "Transparent 3D Pen Mat" and related products sold on the Amazon marketplace (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are mats used for creating objects with a 3D drawing pen (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not describe the specific features of the accused product outside of alleging that it infringes claim 1 of the '901 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused mat contains all elements recited in the claim, including various templates with grooves and a "fuse-and-join area" with specifically dimensioned grooves for assembling parts (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an exemplary infringement analysis in "Exhibit C," which was not provided with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶23). The narrative infringement theory is based on the assertion that the Accused Products read on at least independent claim 1 of the ’901 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The complaint quotes the full text of claim 1, alleging that the Defendant's "Transparent 3D Pen Mat" embodies each recited element (Compl. ¶15).

The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that the Defendant's mat is a flexible mat that includes templates with grooves for forming 2D and 3D shapes, directly corresponding to the initial limitations of claim 1. Critically, the complaint further alleges the presence of a "fuse-and-join area" on the accused mat, which includes grooves that are larger than other template grooves by an "extra length" for the express purpose of joining separately-made components into a more complex object (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that these features on the accused product provide the same "improved stability" as the patented invention (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of "fuse-and-join area." A question for the court will be whether a feature on the accused mat meets the detailed functional and structural requirements of this term as recited in the claim. Specifically, does it possess "fuse-and-join grooves" that have "sizes exceeding the respective predetermined sizes of said template grooves by an extra length" and thereby produce an "external edge of the base"?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint or its (unseen) exhibits provide to demonstrate that a particular set of grooves on the accused mat is intended to function as a "fuse-and-join area" for assembling parts, rather than simply being another geometric template? The analysis will likely require examination of the physical product, its instructions, and marketing materials to determine if the accused feature performs the specific functions of "concentrically placing" and "joining" parts as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "fuse-and-join area"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central, distinguishing feature of claim 1. The patent dedicates significant claim language to defining its specific structure and function. Infringement will likely depend on whether any portion of the accused mat can be properly characterized as this specific area, rather than as a generic template. Practitioners may focus on this term because its detailed limitations provide a clear axis for non-infringement arguments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that the term should be construed functionally, focusing on language like "functioning as a base for concentrically placing... and joining" objects (’901 Patent, col. 6:1-5). This could support an argument that any area on the mat that a user could use for joining parts meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may point to the specific structural requirements that follow the functional language, arguing they narrow the term's scope. These include the requirements that the area has grooves "having sizes exceeding the respective predetermined sizes of said template grooves by an extra length" and that this produces an "external edge of the base" (’901 Patent, col. 6:10-16). The specification's description of a specific embodiment, identifying the "fifth 'fuse-and-join' concentric squares" template as this area, could be used to argue the term requires a dedicated, specially-designed feature, not just any template (’901 Patent, col. 2:63-65).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant, with knowledge of the patent, actively aids and abets infringement by its partners and customers by "distributing the Accused Products and providing materials and/or services related to the Accused Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness, pleading that Defendant has had "knowledge of Plaintiff's patent rights as early as November 2023" and has continued its infringing conduct despite this pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 28-29).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the highly specific term "fuse-and-join area," with its detailed structural requirements of "exceeding sizes" and an "extra length," be construed to read on a feature of the accused mat? The outcome of this construction will likely be dispositive for infringement.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: beyond physical similarity, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that a specific area on the accused product is intended to perform the claimed function of assembling separate components into a "complex 3-dimensional object," as opposed to merely serving as another standalone design template? This may require analysis of the defendant's instructions, marketing, or other evidence of intended use.