DCT

3:18-cv-03263

Varidesk LLC v. Qidong Vision Mounts Mfg Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Varidesk LLC v. Qidong Vision Mounts Manufacturing Co., Ltd., et al., 3:18-cv-03263, N.D. Tex., 12/12/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have transacted business and committed acts of patent infringement within the Northern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s height-adjustable desk platforms infringe four utility patents and one design patent related to mechanisms and ornamental designs for sit-stand desk converters.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves ergonomic desk platforms designed to be placed on existing tables, allowing a user to quickly transition a workstation between sitting and standing heights.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the four asserted utility patents (but not the design patent) are the subject of a parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation commenced on June 22, 2018, against the same Defendants. This earlier ITC action is asserted as establishing Defendants' knowledge of the utility patents for the purpose of willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-05-24 Priority Date for '703, '809, '644, '793 Patents
2014-12-23 Priority Date for D'623 Patent
2015-08-25 '703 Patent Issued
2016-03-08 '809 Patent Issued
2017-01-31 '644 Patent Issued
2018-03-27 '793 Patent Issued
2018-06-22 Plaintiff files related ITC Complaint against Defendants
2018-11-06 D'623 Patent Issued
2018-12-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,113,703 - "Adjustable Desk Platform"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,113,703, "Adjustable Desk Platform," issued August 25, 2015 (’703 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the health risks of prolonged sitting and the physical strain of prolonged standing, noting a need for a simple, quick, and easy way to transition between sitting and standing work postures (Compl. Ex. 1; ’703 Patent, col. 1:24-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pre-assembled unit placed on an existing desk. It consists of an upper work platform and a lower base connected by sets of pivot arms that allow the upper platform to move up and down while remaining parallel to the base. The height is secured by a locking mechanism, which includes a handle-operated anchor that engages one of a plurality of perforations in a pivot arm to lock it in place (Compl. Ex. 1; ’703 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for converting a conventional fixed-height desk into an ergonomic sit-stand workstation without requiring the replacement of the entire desk (Compl. Ex. 1; ’703 Patent, col. 3:6-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’703 Patent are asserted, but refers to a sample claim chart in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶22, Ex. 13). For analytical purposes, independent claim 1 is presented below.

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • An upper platform defining a first substantially planar work surface and an opposite lower surface.
    • First and second lower mounting brackets extending below the upper platform.
    • A base located beneath the upper platform, with a bottom surface "without legs that is adapted to sit on an existing desk."
    • First and second upper mounting brackets extending upward from the base.
    • First and second sets of arms connecting the lower and upper mounting brackets, adapted to move the upper platform parallel to the base between raised and lowered positions.
    • A first locking mechanism comprising a user-operable first handle connected to the lower surface of the upper platform, which operates a first anchor to "releasably lock the first set of arms in position."

U.S. Patent No. 9,277,809 - "Adjustable Desk Platform"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,277,809, "Adjustable Desk Platform," issued March 8, 2016 (’809 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related '703 Patent, this invention addresses the need for ergonomic workstations that allow easy transition between sitting and standing (Compl. Ex. 2; ’809 Patent, col. 1:27-58).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent discloses an adjustable desk platform that incorporates a keyboard tray suspended below a recess in the upper platform. It further claims a locking mechanism with two user-operable handles to lock two corresponding sets of arms. The design also introduces hand apertures extending through the upper platform adjacent to the handles, intended to provide more ergonomic access for the user to operate the locking mechanism (Compl. Ex. 2; ’809 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-52).
  • Technical Importance: The inclusion of an integrated keyboard tray and hand apertures aimed to improve the overall ergonomic functionality and ease of use of the desk converter concept (Compl. Ex. 2; ’809 Patent, col. 2:20-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’809 Patent are asserted, referencing an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶30, Ex. 14). For analytical purposes, independent claim 1 is presented below.

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • An upper platform defining a substantially planar work surface and a recess.
    • A base with a bottom adapted to sit on an existing desk.
    • First and second sets of arms coupling the upper platform to the base.
    • A locking mechanism with first and second anchors and first and second user-operable handles.
    • A keyboard tray suspended below the recess in the upper platform.
    • First and second support brackets extending between the keyboard tray and the lateral sides of the recess.
    • A limitation that the surface area of the keyboard tray is less than one half of the surface area of the upper platform.

U.S. Patent No. 9,554,644 - "Adjustable Desk Platform"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,554,644, "Adjustable Desk Platform," issued January 31, 2017 (’644 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an adjustable desk platform focusing on the specific mechanics of the locking system and an associated biasing system. The locking mechanism uses a handle connected by a linkage to an anchor that engages perforations in a pivot arm ('644 Patent, Abstract). The patent also describes a multi-part spring system, including a compression spring and a cantilever "booster spring," designed to assist the user in lifting the platform ('644 Patent, col. 5:50-6:31).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims and references an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶38, Ex. 15).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the general height-adjustable functionality and associated mechanical components of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 9,924,793 - "Adjustable Desk Platform"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,924,793, "Adjustable Desk Platform," issued March 27, 2018 (’793 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an adjustable desk platform with an emphasis on the ergonomic operation of its locking mechanism. It claims a pivotally connected handle located underneath the work surface that a user can operate with their fingers while their thumb remains on top of the work surface ('793 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:41-50). This configuration is intended to provide a more intuitive and stable method for releasing the lock to adjust the platform's height.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims and references an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶46, Ex. 16).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the height-adjustable functionality and user-operated locking mechanisms of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Design Patent No. D832,623 - "Desk"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D832,623, "Desk," issued November 6, 2018 (’623 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a desk converter. The claimed design consists of the specific visual appearance of the two-tiered platform, including the particular shape of the upper surface, the cutout for the keyboard tray, the shape of the tray itself, and the overall proportions and aesthetic impression of the assembled unit as depicted in the patent figures ('623 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings.
  • Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the Accused Product model VM-LD02T (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as height-adjustable desk platforms, specifically listing models VM-LD02, VM-LD04, VM-LD07, VM-SD07, VM-SD08, VM-LD08, and all sub-models thereof (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as height-adjustable desk platforms and components sold in competition with Varidesk's products (Compl. ¶12). A visual provided in the complaint for model VM-LD02T depicts a two-tiered platform designed to hold a monitor on its upper surface and a keyboard and mouse on a lower tray, which can be raised or lowered by a user (Compl. p. 10).
  • The complaint alleges these products are sold in the United States through various distributors and brand names, including Fezibo, Vivo, and Songmics, on platforms such as Amazon.com and Alibaba.com (Compl. ¶¶16-17). It further alleges Defendants market the products at U.S. trade shows and list North America as a "major market" (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references external claim chart exhibits for each of the four asserted utility patents but does not provide them (Compl. ¶¶22, 30, 38, 46). The complaint's narrative does not contain specific, element-by-element infringement allegations for these patents. The infringement theory is broadly alleged as the making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing of the Accused Products, which are alleged to embody the patented inventions (Compl. ¶¶22, 30, 38, 46).

For the ’623 design patent, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and the accused VM-LD02T product (Compl. p. 10). This image juxtaposes figures from the patent with photographs of the accused product to support the allegation that, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the designs are substantially the same (Compl. ¶54). The visual comparison highlights similarities in the overall two-tiered configuration, the shape of the upper work surface with its curved front edge and central recess, and the shape of the lower keyboard tray.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’703 Patent (based on Claim 1)

  • The Term: "a base... defining a bottom surface without legs that is adapted to sit on an existing desk"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the product as a desktop converter rather than a standalone adjustable desk. The construction of "without legs" may become a focal point if an accused product includes small feet or protuberances on its base, raising the question of whether such features constitute "legs" under the claim's meaning.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not explicitly define "legs," potentially supporting an interpretation that the term excludes any low-profile support structure, such as pads or small feet, that does not substantially elevate the base off the supporting desk surface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict a base with a flat bottom surface designed to sit flush on a desk, sometimes with thin pads ('703 Patent, Figs. 1, 12, 13). This could support an argument that any distinct, downward-projecting support element constitutes a "leg" and falls outside the claim scope.

For the ’809 Patent (based on Claim 1)

  • The Term: "a keyboard tray suspended below the recess in the upper platform"
  • Context and Importance: This term structurally links the keyboard tray to a "recess" in the upper platform. Infringement will depend on whether the accused products feature an indentation that qualifies as a "recess" and whether the tray is "suspended below" it in the claimed manner.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general description could support construing "recess" as any cutout or indented area on the front edge of the platform and "suspended below" as a general positional relationship rather than a direct physical attachment to the recess itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent family show a distinct, curved, U-shaped cutout ('809 Patent, Fig. 18, element 104). This could support a narrower construction requiring a similar shape and a direct structural relationship where the tray is positioned within the horizontal confines of that specific recess.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement for all five asserted patents. It states that Defendants knowingly and intentionally encourage others, such as distributors and end-users, to directly infringe by purchasing the Accused Products for importation and sale in the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶23, 31, 39, 47, 55).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. For the four utility patents, the complaint bases the allegation on Defendants' knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date they were notified of Varidesk's complaint leading to the ITC Investigation," filed June 22, 2018 (Compl. ¶¶27, 35, 43, 51). For the ’623 design patent, which was not part of the ITC action, knowledge is alleged "at least as of the date they learned of this complaint" (Compl. ¶59).

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

  • A central issue for the four utility patents will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint relies entirely on unattached exhibits for its technical infringement theory, a key question will be what evidence Plaintiff introduces to demonstrate that the specific internal mechanics of the accused products—particularly their locking, linkage, and biasing systems—meet the precise limitations recited in the asserted claims.
  • The design patent claim will turn on the scope of ornamental design: The core legal question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would find the overall ornamental appearance of the accused VM-LD02T product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '623 Patent, or if differences in curves, proportions, and features are sufficient to create a distinct visual impression.
  • A key question for damages will be one of willful conduct: The court will likely examine whether Defendants' alleged continued infringement of the four utility patents after receiving notice via the ITC complaint in June 2018 constitutes the type of egregious conduct required to justify an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.