3:24-cv-02416
Foshan Wuyingtui Trading Co Ltd v. Jcwin Auto Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Foshan Wuyingtui Trading Co. Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Jcwin Auto Corp (U.S. corporation)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-02416, N.D. Tex., 09/24/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff FWT asserts venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Texas is its top market, and Amazon's removal of its products from sale, prompted by Defendant JCWIN, has a substantial effect in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Bestwyll" brand truck bed covers do not infringe Defendant's patent related to roll-up truck bed covers and that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns retractable, slat-based covers for pickup truck beds, a common automotive accessory designed to secure cargo and protect it from the elements.
- Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by Defendant JCWIN initiating an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Program proceeding against Plaintiff FWT, alleging infringement. FWT filed this action seeking a judicial determination of non-infringement and invalidity to preempt delisting of its products from Amazon. The complaint also alleges the patent-in-suit is invalid in light of a prior Australian patent application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-01-10 | Alleged Prior Art ('028 Application) Filing Date |
| 2019-05-06 | '056 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-10-12 | '056 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-09-04 | Amazon APEX Program Notice Received by Plaintiff |
| 2024-09-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,142,056 - Truck bed cover
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,142,056, "Truck bed cover," issued October 12, 2021.
The Invention Explained
Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that known truck bed covers can be heavy and bulky when stored, making them inconvenient for users (ʼ056 Patent, col. 1:13-15).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a roll-up truck bed cover composed of interconnected slats that retract into a storage holder near the truck cab. The patent describes a specific internal structure for the slats, featuring a "center 'C' shaped portion" in its middle wall, which is claimed to provide a lightweight yet high-strength design that facilitates manufacturing and attachment of end caps (ʼ056 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:33-48). The design also aims to create a substantially flat surface when deployed, maximizing the cargo area on top of the cover (ʼ056 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
Technical Importance: The specified slat design purports to solve the competing engineering demands of weight, strength, and ease of manufacturing in retractable covers exposed to environmental stress (ʼ056 Patent, col. 1:42-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses its non-infringement and invalidity arguments on Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 25, 34).
- The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A truck bed cover comprising rails, a multiplicity of slats, end caps, flexible joiner hinges, and a cover holder.
- The slats slide between the rails into the holder for storage.
- Each slat includes a laterally running front side, a rear side, and a top surface.
- Critically, each slat includes "a laterally running, and vertically reaching, center wall between the front side and the rear side and reaching down from the slat top surface."
- The complaint argues that because the independent claim is not infringed, no dependent claims are infringed (Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are "Bestwyll" brand truck bed covers sold by Plaintiff FWT on Amazon.com, identified by ASINs B0BX6CLG2C, B0CLVPJFGY, B0CKYMT8QG, B0CGF332K2, B0CWS2SDB1, and B0BZ4YTPG6 (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as truck bed covers that are "functionally equivalent" to one another (Compl. ¶8). They are sold via the Amazon Marketplace, which constitutes FWT's "primary sales channel into the United States" (Compl. ¶10). The central technical allegation for non-infringement is that the slats in the accused products do not contain the specific "inner center wall" structure as described and claimed in the ’056 Patent (Compl. ¶25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement and Invalidity Allegations
'056 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a full claim chart but centers its non-infringement argument on the absence of a single, critical element from Claim 1.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Plaintiff's Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a laterally running, and vertically reaching, center wall between the front side and the rear side and reaching down from the slat top surface | Plaintiff FWT alleges its products "do not have" this feature and that their "slats do not contain the inner center wall as described in the '056 Patent." | ¶25 | col. 4:13-16 |
'056 Patent Invalidity Allegations
The complaint alleges that Claim 1 of the ’056 Patent is invalid as anticipated by Australian Patent Application AU 2019100028 (“’028 Application”), which was filed before the ’056 Patent's priority date (Compl. ¶33). The complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison of a figure from the '056 patent and a figure from the '028 Application to support its argument of identity. This image depicts two similar-looking roll-top truck bed covers to assert they are the same product (Compl. p. 7). The complaint proceeds to allege that the ’028 Application teaches every limitation of Claim 1, including the crucial "center wall" element (Compl. ¶34.xi).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question (Infringement): The core infringement dispute will turn on the proper construction of the term "center wall." The question is whether the internal support structure of FWT's product slats falls within the scope of this claim term as it is defined and described in the ’056 patent.
- Technical Question (Infringement): What is the actual, physical cross-section of the slats in FWT's "Bestwyll" products? The complaint makes a legal conclusion about the absence of a feature but does not provide visual or documentary evidence of the accused product's specific internal construction.
- Factual Question (Invalidity): Does the prior art ’028 Application, particularly its figures and description, disclose "a laterally running, and vertically reaching, center wall" with sufficient clarity to anticipate that limitation in Claim 1 of the ’056 Patent? The complaint asserts that it does, citing "a wall [center wall] between the front hole 46 and the back hole 47" in the prior art's Figure 4 (Compl. ¶34.xi).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "center wall"
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of FWT's non-infringement case. FWT explicitly alleges its products lack this claimed feature (Compl. ¶25). The patentability of the claim over the cited prior art may also depend on the specific structure imparted by this "center wall." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of both infringement and validity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language in Claim 1 itself is arguably broad, requiring only "a laterally running, and vertically reaching, center wall" connecting the slat's top and bottom surfaces (ʼ056 Patent, col. 4:13-16). JCWIN may argue that this language covers any internal, longitudinal rib or support structure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and specifically describes the center wall as having a "center 'C' shaped portion" (ʼ056 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:11-13). Figure 6 provides a detailed depiction of this "C" shape (36c). FWT will likely argue that these specific descriptions and embodiments limit the scope of "center wall" to a structure including this "C" shaped feature, which it alleges its products lack.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint requests a declaration of non-infringement "either directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶24) but provides no specific factual allegations from JCWIN regarding inducement or contributory infringement for analysis.
- Willful Infringement: This section is not applicable, as no party has alleged willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on two primary questions for the court:
A core issue will be one of claim construction: How will the court define "center wall"? Will the term be limited to the specific "C-shaped" cross-section detailed in the ’056 patent's specification and figures, or will it be construed more broadly to encompass any internal, longitudinal support wall within a cover slat? The answer to this question may resolve the infringement dispute.
A key evidentiary question will be one of anticipation: Does the cited prior art, the Australian '028 Application, disclose every element of Claim 1 of the '056 patent? The analysis will require a detailed, element-by-element comparison between the prior art's teachings and the patent's claims, focusing on whether the '028 Application's figures and text unambiguously teach the claimed "center wall" structure.