1:25-cv-00083
Yangzhou Ciyang Craft Products Co Ltd v. Shengzhou Yuneng Trade Department
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yangzhou Ciyang Craft Products Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Shengzhou Yuneng Trade Department (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP; Glacier Law LLP
Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00083, E.D. Va., 01/16/2025
Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 293, which applies to foreign patent owners who have not designated an agent for service of process in the United States.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s design patent for a rolling storage cart is invalid due to prior public use, prior sale, and improper inventorship, and therefore is not infringed by Plaintiff's products.
Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of a multi-tiered rolling storage cart, a common consumer product for home and office organization.
Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant filing a patent infringement complaint with Amazon, which resulted in the de-listing of Plaintiff’s products from the e-commerce platform. The complaint's central allegations rely on evidence of prior art originating from before the patent's filing date.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-02-18 | Alleged creation date of the product's design by its original factory (Compl. ¶29) |
| 2022-04-25 | Alleged date of a promotional photo of the product (Compl. ¶28) |
| 2022-06-11 | Alleged first identified sale of the design on the PDD e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶26) |
| 2022-12-01 | Alleged subsequent sale of the design on the PDD e-commerce platform (Compl. ¶25) |
| 2023-07-10 | ’985 Patent Priority and Filing Date ('985 Patent, (22)) |
| 2023-10-24 | ’985 Patent Issue Date ('985 Patent, (45)) |
| 2024-09-15 | Plaintiff receives notice from Amazon regarding Defendant's infringement report (Compl. ¶17) |
| 2025-01-16 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed (Compl. p. 1) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,002,985 - "Rolling Storage Cart"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but rather protect the novel, original, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture ('985 Patent, p.1). The patent aims to protect a specific aesthetic for a rolling storage cart.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "Rolling Storage Cart" as depicted in its eight figures ('985 Patent, CLAIM). The design features a vertically stacked arrangement of containers on a wheeled base, characterized by multiple angled, perforated baskets, a solid bottom bin, and a top tray with two circular depressions ('985 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 7). The complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design to illustrate the subject of the dispute (Compl. ¶22).
- Technical Importance: The design pertains to the consumer goods market, where aesthetic appearance can be a significant driver of commercial success. The complaint alleges the corresponding product is a "top selling product," suggesting the design has market appeal (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a rolling storage cart, as shown and described." ('985 Patent, CLAIM).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Plaintiff’s AGTEK brand rolling storage cart, sold on Amazon under ASINs including B0CMH98RDB (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the product as a "top selling product" for the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶8). It further alleges that the product's de-listing from Amazon, prompted by the Defendant's infringement report, could lead to the "total annihilation of Plaintiff's business" (Compl. ¶8). The Plaintiff's central argument is that its product embodies a design that was publicly available and sold by a Chinese manufacturer as early as 2022, well before the '985 Patent's filing date (Compl. ¶¶1, 23-24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its primary argument is not that the Plaintiff's product design differs from the patented design, but rather that the '985 Patent is invalid and therefore cannot be infringed. The complaint explicitly states, "Based on the foregoing prior art, Plaintiff's product cannot infringe the '985 Patent because the '985 Patent is invalid" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element comparison to argue for non-infringement based on design differences. Instead, it focuses on presenting evidence intended to invalidate the patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103.
Identified Points of Contention
The core of the dispute as framed by the complaint is not infringement, but patent validity. The primary questions raised are:
- Prior Art: Can the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including screenshots of alleged prior sales on a Chinese e-commerce platform, establish a public use or on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102? (Compl. ¶¶ 24-26, 36-37). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows an item alleged to be the same design for sale on December 1, 2022 (Compl. ¶25).
- Authenticity of Evidence: A significant factual question will concern the authenticity and legal sufficiency of the electronic evidence offered to prove the dates of prior art, such as file metadata purporting to show a design creation date of February 18, 2022, and a promotional photo date of April 25, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29). The complaint includes a screenshot of file properties showing the alleged "Creation time" of a design file (Compl. at 6).
- Inventorship: Does the evidence support the claim that the Defendant was not the true inventor of the design, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 101, but instead patented a pre-existing design from another manufacturer? (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an analysis of claim construction. In design patent cases, there are no textual claim terms to construe. The analysis compares the overall ornamental appearance of the claimed design with the accused product from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The complaint's arguments focus exclusively on invalidity based on an allegedly identical prior art design, rather than on nuanced differences in scope between the Plaintiff's product and the patented design.
VI. Other Allegations
Tortious Interference
The complaint includes counts for Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations (Count II) and Prospective Economic Advantage (Count III). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant knew its patent was invalid and intentionally filed "materially false allegations of patent infringement" with Amazon to have the Plaintiff's product listings removed, thereby improperly interfering with the Plaintiff's business and contract with Amazon (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45, 55).
Exceptional Case
The Plaintiff seeks a judgment that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle it to attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D). This is based on allegations that the Defendant engaged in improper conduct by asserting a patent it knew or should have known was invalid, particularly by making "fraudulent representations to the USPTO" through false claims of inventorship and concealment of prior sales (Compl. ¶39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on the validity of the '985 design patent, rather than a traditional non-infringement analysis. The central questions for the court will likely be:
A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the Plaintiff's evidence, including e-commerce screenshots and electronic file metadata, be authenticated and proven to establish that a design legally identical to the one in the '985 Patent was in public use or on sale before the patent's critical date of July 10, 2022?
A second key issue will be one of inventorship and inequitable conduct: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the named inventor on the '985 Patent was not the true inventor and that the Defendant knowingly concealed invalidating prior art from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution?
Finally, the case raises a question of improper enforcement: If the patent is found to be invalid, did the Defendant’s act of filing an infringement complaint with Amazon, allegedly with knowledge of the patent's invalidity, constitute tortious interference for which the Defendant is liable for damages?