DCT

7:25-cv-04301

Dbest Products Inc v. Sanders Collection Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-04301, S.D.N.Y., 05/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the Defendant, a New York corporation, resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable collapsible carts infringe two patents related to locking mechanisms and structural features for such carts.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns collapsible personal utility carts, a consumer product category where portability and load-bearing capacity are key competitive features.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff marks its patented products with the relevant patent numbers to provide notice to the public. No other prior litigation or administrative proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-01-06 Earliest Priority Date for '446 and '546 Patents
2025-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 12,275,446 Issues
2025-05-20 U.S. Patent No. 12,304,546 Issues
2025-05-21 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,275,446 - "High Load Capacity Collapsible Carts"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with prior art collapsible carts, stating that "the sidewalls may not be sufficiently sturdy to allow for transporting heavy objects" due to their collapsible nature ('446 Patent, col. 2:13-16).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by reinforcing the sidewalls when the cart is in its open, expanded state. It describes a sidewall constructed from two separate panels that are rotatably coupled. A "slideable member" moves along a "track" that spans both panels, locking them together to form a rigid, co-planar wall ('446 Patent, col. 5:18-35). This locking mechanism is designed to prevent the walls from buckling under a heavy load.
    • Technical Importance: This design attempts to combine the convenience of a collapsible cart with the structural integrity of a rigid one, thereby increasing its useful load capacity.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least one claim of the patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative:
    • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
      • A collapsible cart with a rigid frame (front, rear, right, left, and bottom walls) where the sidewalls are configured to fold inwardly.
      • The right sidewall comprises a first right panel rotatably coupled to a second right panel.
      • A "first track" is formed along both the first and second right panels.
      • A "first slideable member" is engaged with the track and is movable between an open position (allowing the panels to fold) and a closed position to "selectively lock the first right panel to the second right panel."
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 12,304,546 - "Collapsible Carts"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: This patent similarly addresses the need for improvements in collapsible carts where "the sidewalls may not be sufficiently sturdy to allow for transporting heavy objects" ('546 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a collapsible cart with multi-panel sidewalls that are secured together to provide rigidity. The solution described in representative claim 9 involves a "fastener" system, comprising a "first fastener member" on the edge of a first panel and a "second fastener member" on the edge of an adjacent second panel ('546 Patent, col. 14:15-30). When the panels are unfolded to be "substantially coplanar," these fastener members can mate to secure the panels, creating a sturdier wall structure.
    • Technical Importance: This patent provides another mechanical approach to reinforcing the structure of a collapsible cart, focusing on how adjacent panels are joined and secured.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least one claim of the patent (Compl. ¶20). Independent claim 9 is representative:
    • Essential Elements of Claim 9:
      • A collapsible cart with a frame of at least five walls, where at least three walls fold inwardly.
      • A third wall comprises a first panel and a second panel, with the second panel rotatably coupled to the first.
      • A "fastener" is configured to "selectively secure the first panel and the second panel in a substantially coplanar alignment."
      • The fastener consists of a "first fastener member" on an edge of the first panel and a "second fastener member" on an edge of the second panel, which are configured to "mate with one another."
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as numerous portable cart products sold by Defendant on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). A specific list of products by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) is referenced as Exhibit C, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality or operation of the Accused Products. It alleges they are sold to consumers in the United States and within the judicial district via Amazon (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include the representative claim charts (Exhibits D and E) that form the basis of its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶15, ¶20). The infringement theory is therefore stated in purely conclusory terms: that the Defendant's sale of the Accused Products directly infringes the ’446 and ’546 patents because the products allegedly satisfy each limitation of at least one claim of each patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: Given the lack of factual detail, the central dispute will be one of technical evidence. Does the mechanism used to secure the foldable walls in the Accused Products operate in the same way as the claimed inventions? Specifically, do they contain a "slideable member" on a "track" as required by claim 1 of the ’446 Patent, or a "fastener" with mating members on panel edges as required by claim 9 of the ’546 Patent?
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on the interpretation of the claim terms. For the ’446 Patent, a key question is what range of mechanisms qualifies as a "slideable member cooperatively engaged to the first track." For the ’546 Patent, a similar question arises for the term "fastener" and the requirement that its members "mate" to hold the panels in "substantially coplanar alignment."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’446 Patent

  • The Term: "slideable member" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central active component of the claimed locking mechanism. The scope of this term will likely determine whether the accused locking feature infringes, as it dictates the specific structure and action required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and not explicitly defined in the patent. Plaintiff may argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any component that slides to effect a lock.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the term should be limited to the specific embodiment shown, which is a clip-like structure (58) that slides along a raised track (46) ('446 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:18-24).

’546 Patent

  • The Term: "fastener" (from Claim 9)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the entire securing apparatus in claim 9. Its construction is critical to determining if the way the accused product's panels are held together falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that "fastener" is a broad, non-limiting term encompassing any mechanism that joins the two panels, such as clips, latches, or slides.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may point to the detailed description and figures to argue the term is implicitly limited to the specific sliding latch mechanisms disclosed ('546 Patent, e.g., Figs. 42A-42B). Further, the patent's use of a more specific term, "latch part," in a different claim (Claim 1) could be used to argue that the patentee's choice of the general term "fastener" in Claim 9 was intentional and should be given a correspondingly broader meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The two counts are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶15, ¶20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It makes a standard request for attorneys' fees but does not plead facts supporting pre-suit knowledge or egregious conduct that would typically underpin a willfulness claim (Compl. ¶18, ¶23).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the term "slideable member" ('446 Patent) be broadly construed to cover various types of locks, or is it limited to the specific sliding clip embodiment shown in the patent? Similarly, how broadly will the court interpret the term "fastener" ('546 Patent)? The outcome of claim construction may be dispositive.

  2. The case will turn on a question of evidentiary proof: the complaint's allegations are conclusory and rely on un-filed exhibits. A primary focus of the litigation will be Plaintiff's ability to produce evidence, likely obtained through discovery, demonstrating that the specific mechanical structures of the Accused Products meet each element of the asserted claims.

  3. A key dispute will involve a direct technical comparison: assuming the claims are construed, does the accused mechanism for securing the cart's panels function in a way that is equivalent to the patented "slideable member" on a "track" or the claimed "fastener" with mating components, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their structure and operation?