DCT
2:25-cv-00319
Mabe LLC v. Wie
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mabe, LLC (Idaho/Utah)
- Defendant: Haixia Wie a/k/a Sarah Wie; Changquan Zhong (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Western IP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00319, D. Utah, 05/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants conduct business in the State of Utah.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant's design patent for a baby carrier is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed, alleging the patent was fraudulently procured after the design had been publicly sold for over a year.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of soft-structured baby carriers, a consumer product used for carrying infants.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Defendant Wie manufactured baby carriers for Plaintiff Mabe. Following the termination of this relationship, Defendant Wie allegedly filed for and obtained a design patent on the carrier design. The complaint asserts this patent is invalid under the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102, pointing to alleged sales of the product as early as 2021. Defendant allegedly used the issued patent to have Plaintiff's product listings removed from Amazon, prompting this declaratory judgment action. A related trademark opposition is noted as pending before the TTAB.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-12-11 | Product allegedly shown for sale by third-party Vincent & Vivi |
| 2023-01-31 | Product allegedly offered for sale by third-party Bodelondonuk |
| 2023-06-07 | Product allegedly sold online by third-party BizziGrown |
| 2023-11-01 | Defendant allegedly began shipping products to Plaintiff |
| 2024-08-26 | '903 Patent Priority Date (Application Filed) |
| 2025-03-18 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,066,903 Issues |
| 2025-04-21 | Plaintiff's products allegedly removed from Amazon |
| 2025-05-08 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,066,903 - "BABY CARRIER"
Issued March 18, 2025
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '903 Patent does not address a technical problem but instead protects the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, in this case, a baby carrier (’903 Patent, p. 3, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a baby carrier as depicted in its figures (’903 Patent, p. 3, Claim). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, features a main body panel with horizontal stitched bands, shoulder straps that cross in the back and loop through the main panel, and a wide, supportive waist belt (’903 Patent, FIGS. 1, 3, 4). The design creates a specific aesthetic impression distinct from the functional aspects of the carrier.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the specific design was commercially significant prior to the patent's filing, having been sold by the Defendant to other U.S. companies since at least 2021 (Compl. ¶11, ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the '903 Patent is asserted.
- The claim protects:
- The ornamental design for a baby carrier as shown and described.
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual features of the baby carrier depicted in solid lines in the patent's eight figures, while elements shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design (’903 Patent, p. 3, Description).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Plaintiff’s (Mabe, LLC’s) baby carrier products (Compl. ¶9, ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the product as a "baby carrier harnesses which straps to the body of a caregiver" (Compl. ¶10). This is the product that Plaintiff sold on Amazon and which was allegedly removed as a result of Defendant’s infringement complaint to Amazon (Compl. ¶32). The complaint alleges that this product is identical to products Defendant had been selling to other companies since 2021 and which is depicted in prior art exhibits (Compl. ¶11, ¶35). The complaint includes an image from an archived website allegedly showing the product for sale in December 2021 (Compl. ¶35, Exhibit B).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement but does not articulate a detailed theory or provide element-by-element analysis to support this request (Prayer for Relief ¶1). The pleading focuses almost exclusively on allegations that the ’903 Patent is invalid and unenforceable.
The governing standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint’s primary contention is not that the Mabe carrier is visually distinct from the patented design, but rather that the patent itself is invalid due to prior public sales of the same design. A screenshot from an archived 2021 website allegedly shows the product for sale long before the patent application was filed (Compl. ¶35, Exhibit B). The central infringement-related question raised by the complaint is therefore predicated on validity: if the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 due to an on-sale bar, the question of infringement is moot.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As the '903 Patent is a design patent, there are no specific textual claim terms that require construction in the manner of a utility patent. The scope of the claim is defined by the ornamental design as depicted in the patent's drawings.
VI. Other Allegations
Inequitable Conduct
- The complaint alleges the ’903 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶48). The basis for this allegation is that the patentee, Defendant Wie, failed to disclose material prior art to the USPTO, including her own alleged prior sales of the product on Alibaba and sales to other U.S. companies more than one year before the patent application's filing date (Compl. ¶49). The complaint alleges this failure to disclose was done with an intent to mislead the USPTO (Compl. ¶9, ¶48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be an evidentiary one of prior public use: Can Plaintiff Mabe produce clear and convincing evidence that the specific ornamental design claimed in the '903 Patent was "on sale" or otherwise publicly available in the United States before the critical date of August 26, 2023, thereby invalidating the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
- A second key question will concern intent and materiality for inequitable conduct: Assuming the prior sales are proven to be material, can the Plaintiff establish that the Defendant knew of their materiality and deliberately withheld the information from the USPTO with a specific intent to deceive, as required to render the patent unenforceable?
- A predicate factual question for the invalidity analysis will be identity of design: Is the ornamental design shown in the alleged prior art references (e.g., the 2021 website and 2023 social media posts) substantially the same as the design claimed in the '903 Patent?