Shaodong Tongxindream Culture Media Co Ltd v. Brandon Himmel

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shaodong TongxinDream Culture Media Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Brandon Himmel (United States)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00846, S.D. Tex., 02/26/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Southern District of Texas on the basis that the Defendant is a resident of Houston, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its vehicle seat cover products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to a vehicle seating and door cover.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns protective covers for vehicle interiors, designed to shield seating and door surfaces from damage, particularly when transporting pets.
• Key Procedural History: This action was initiated in response to the Defendant filing a patent infringement complaint against the Plaintiff through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) process, an internal Amazon dispute resolution mechanism. The Plaintiff’s filing of this declaratory judgment action moves the dispute into federal court.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,221,024 - Vehicle Seating or Cargo Area and Door Cover

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes issues with prior art vehicle seat covers, noting that they can be displaced by pets, may leave interior surfaces exposed, can be difficult to install, and often do not fit particular vehicles well (’024 Patent, col. 1:5-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-part cover designed to protect a vehicle's rear seating area and adjacent door interiors. It comprises a central section covering the seat and floor, which connects to side panels that cover the interior of the vehicle doors (’024 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is the use of separate, attachable "window inserts" that are inserted into the vehicle's window channel and then fastened to the side door panels, securing them in place while allowing the doors to open and close without dislodging the cover (’024 Patent, col. 4:42-54; FIG. 17).
• Technical Importance: This design purports to offer more comprehensive and stable protection for vehicle interiors than previous covers by specifically addressing how to secure panels to the vehicle doors themselves.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as the sole independent claim of the patent and the basis of the dispute (Compl. ¶15, ¶19).
• The essential elements of Claim 1, as recited in the complaint, include:
  • A cover for a seating and/or cargo area and doors of a vehicle, comprising:
  • a middle panel having front, rear, left and right edges;
  • a front panel attached to the front edge of the middle panel;
  • a rear panel attached to the rear edge of the middle panel, each panel comprising a plurality of layers heat pressed together;
  • a plurality of seat belt openings;
  • left and right side door panels attached to an upper portion of the front panel;
  • left and right front straps and one or more rear straps;
  • a left window insert attachable to the left side door panel; and
  • a right window insert attachable to the right side door panel, each window insert configured to be inserted into a window opening of the vehicle, wherein each window insert comprises an angle piece having a first leg and a second leg perpendicular to the first leg, and an attachment strip in a recess in the second leg.
• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of all "presumably valid claims," which would include any dependent claims, but the analysis focuses exclusively on Claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Products" are "Dog Car Seat Cover Products" sold by Plaintiff TongxinDream on its Amazon store (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the relevant feature of the Accused Product as a set of "three fixed plastic thin pieces on each side door panels" (Compl. ¶22). These pieces are used to secure the cover's side panels by being inserted into the vehicle's window opening (Compl. ¶22).
• The complaint alleges these plastic pieces are "fixed and non-removable" from the side panels, in contrast to the "attachable" inserts required by the patent's claim (Compl. ¶22). The photograph provided in the complaint shows a close-up of these "fixed thin pieces" integrated into the side panel of the cover. (Compl. ¶22, p. 6).
• The complaint notes that the products are "well-established at Amazon" and have a high average customer rating (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The plaintiff’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the plaintiff's stated basis for this declaration, focusing on the disputed claim element.

’024 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the "fixed plastic thin pieces" of the Accused Product (Compl. ¶22) are structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed "window insert." The complaint provides a photograph purporting to show that the Accused Product's pieces are simple, flat inserts, not "angle piece[s]" with perpendicular legs as claimed. (Compl. ¶22, p. 6).
  • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether the term "attachable" can be read to cover a "fixed and non-removable" component. Further, it raises the question of whether the detailed geometric limitations of the "window insert" (i.e., "angle piece," "perpendicular" legs, "recess") can be read broadly enough to encompass the structure of the Accused Product's "fixed thin pieces."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a ... window insert attachable to the ... side door panel, ... wherein each window insert comprises an angle piece having a first leg and a second leg perpendicular to the first leg, and an attachment strip in a recess in the second leg"
• Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the non-infringement argument. The plaintiff's case rests on the assertion that its product lacks this specific, multi-part structure (Compl. ¶21-¶22). Practitioners may focus on whether the term is limited to the precise geometric configuration described or if it can encompass other structures that perform the same function of securing the side panel via the window channel.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "one or two window inserts 62 at each window" may be used, or "a single long window insert may be used, or provided as a cut-to-length option," which may suggest some flexibility in the number and length of inserts (’024 Patent, col. 4:55-58). A party could argue this implies the exact form is not strictly limiting.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly specific description of the "window insert 62," stating it "includes an angle piece 70 having a first leg approximately perpendicular to a second leg" and detailing a "recess 64" for an attachment strip (’024 Patent, col. 4:45-54). Figures 11 through 15 are dedicated to illustrating this specific "angle piece" structure. This detailed description and depiction of a single embodiment may support a narrower construction limited to the disclosed geometry.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement "directly, contributorily, or vicariously," but provides no specific factual allegations regarding these theories beyond a general denial (Compl. ¶2, ¶15).

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action appears to depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: How narrowly will the court construe the term "window insert"? Will the definition be strictly limited to the "angle piece having a first leg and a second leg perpendicular to the first leg" as explicitly detailed in the specification, or can it be interpreted more broadly to cover other physical structures that secure a door panel via a window channel?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement: Assuming the claim is construed, do the Accused Product's "fixed thin pieces" fall within the scope of the "window insert" limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents? The plaintiff's position is that the structural differences—"fixed" versus "attachable" and a simple flat shape versus a perpendicular "angle piece"—are dispositive.