DCT
1:25-cv-00679
Shenzhen Quika Technology Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Quika Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Sunwell Industrial Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Merchant & Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00679, E.D. Va., 04/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is predicated on 35 U.S.C. § 293, which grants the Eastern District of Virginia jurisdiction over foreign-domiciled patentees who have not designated a U.S. agent for service of process.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its swivel patio chairs do not infringe Defendant's design patent and/or that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of wicker-style swivel patio chairs, a product category within the consumer outdoor furniture market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action follows a prior lawsuit filed by the Defendant (patentee) in the Northern District of Illinois, which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction after an ex parte temporary restraining order had been entered. Plaintiff initiated this declaratory judgment action after Defendant's counsel communicated an intent to refile the infringement suit. Separately, U.S. Patent Office records indicate that an ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit was requested in August 2024; the reexamination concluded after this complaint was filed, with a certificate issued in May 2025 confirming the patentability of the single claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-10-08 | Alleged first sale date of Prior Art 1 |
| 2015-10-14 | Filing date of Prior Art 3 (Chinese Patent CN 303582470 S) |
| 2017-04-21 | Alleged first sale date of Prior Art 2 |
| 2019-08-29 | D'487 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date) |
| 2021-08-03 | D'487 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-08-29 | Reexamination of D'487 Patent Requested |
| 2025-02-24 | Defendant files initial lawsuit in N.D. Illinois |
| 2025-04-15 | N.D. Illinois lawsuit dismissed |
| 2025-04-21 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed (Current Case) |
| 2025-05-28 | Reexamination Certificate for D'487 Patent Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D926,487, "Swivel Chair," issued August 3, 2021.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems; rather, they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D'487 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The D'487 Patent claims the specific visual appearance of a wicker-style swivel chair. The protected design is defined by the solid lines in the patent's nine figures (D'487 Patent, Figs. 1-9). Key ornamental features include the proportions of the chair, the shape and contour of the continuously flowing armrests, the appearance of the back and seat cushions, and the configuration of the chair's base structure (D'487 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 9). The claim covers the overall ornamental design as shown and described in the patent (D'487 Patent, DESCRIPTION; CLAIM).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific aesthetic impression for a swivel chair, distinguishing it visually within the competitive consumer market for outdoor furniture.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a swivel chair, as shown and described" (D'487 Patent, CLAIM).
- The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's figures. The claim covers the overall visual appearance of the chair, not a list of discrete textual elements.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Quika Products," which comprise at least forty-six different models of swivel patio chairs sold by Plaintiff on online marketplaces such as Amazon (Compl. ¶5).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are functional swivel patio chairs intended for consumer use. The complaint alleges that the visual appearance of these chairs is distinct from the patented design. Specifically, the complaint identifies alleged differences in the design of the cushion, armrests, and base structure (Compl. ¶22). A side-by-side visual comparison provided in the complaint contrasts the patented design with a representative accused product (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following table summarizes the Plaintiff's (Quika's) allegations as to why its products are not substantially the same as the patented design. The legal test 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 (Compl. ¶23).
| Visual Feature of Patented Design (D'487 Patent) | Alleged Distinguishing Feature of Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A single, soft rectangular back cushion and a fully rounded, integrated base structure. | The back cushion has a "multi-lobed, tiered appearance," and the base has an "angular, four-cornered structural style." A side-by-side image presents the allegedly different cushions and overall chair shapes (Compl. p. 6). | ¶22 | Fig. 1 |
| A distinctively contoured armrest that flows smoothly and continuously from the backrest. | The armrest has a "more upright and linear transition from the backrest to the armrest, with minimal curvature." An angled-view comparison is provided to illustrate this alleged distinction (Compl. p. 6). | ¶22 | Fig. 3 |
| A circular support ring smaller than the base and contained within the rectangular bottom frame; a flat, straight-edged rectangular base. | The circular support ring is "visibly larger than the width of the chair's base and protrudes outward," and the base has an "inward-curved design, resulting in a tapered profile." A bottom-view comparison highlights the differing base structures (Compl. p. 7). | ¶22 | Fig. 9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central infringement question is whether the overall visual impression of the accused chairs is substantially the same as the patented design. A key issue will be whether the specific visual differences alleged by the Plaintiff are sufficient to lead an ordinary observer to distinguish the two designs, or if they are merely minor variations.
- Technical Questions: The dispute does not raise technical questions of operation but rather visual questions of design. A primary evidentiary question will be how the identified prior art (Compl. ¶29) informs the perspective of the "ordinary observer" and whether that prior art makes the shared features of the patented design and the accused product appear commonplace, thereby amplifying the significance of any visual differences.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases because the figures largely define the claim scope. However, disputes can arise over which aspects of the design are ornamental and protected versus which are dictated by function and unprotected.
- The Term: The scope of the "ornamental design."
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff has put the functionality of the design directly at issue by alleging that key features of the chair are "primarily functional rather than ornamental" (Compl. ¶31). If the court agrees that certain features are functional, those features would be excluded from the scope of the design claim and disregarded when comparing the patented design to the accused product and the prior art. Practitioners may focus on this issue because a finding of functionality could significantly narrow the patent's scope or invalidate it entirely.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader (Ornamental) Interpretation: The patent grant itself carries a presumption that the PTO considered the design to be ornamental. The Defendant (patentee) may argue that while a chair must provide support and a base must provide stability, there were many alternative aesthetic choices available for the specific appearance of the base, weave, and armrests, making the chosen design ornamental (D'487 Patent, Figs. 1-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower (Functional) Interpretation: The complaint alleges that features like the "circular swivel base, the cross-bracing beneath the seat, and the rectilinear bottom structure" are dictated by "utilitarian considerations such as structural stability, weight distribution, and rotation functionality" (Compl. ¶31). Plaintiff may argue these elements are essential to the chair's use and thus not protectable as part of the ornamental design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Invalidity: In addition to functionality, the complaint alleges the D'487 patent is invalid as anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in light of three prior art references (Compl. ¶¶28-30). These references include two allegedly prior-selling online product listings and one Chinese design patent (Compl. ¶29).
- Exceptional Case: Plaintiff seeks a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would permit an award of attorneys' fees. This request is likely based on the procedural history involving the prior lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois (Compl. ¶¶8-12; Prayer for Relief ¶E).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Question of Overall Impression vs. Specific Differences: The core infringement issue will be whether an ordinary observer, viewing the designs in their entireties, would find the accused Quika chairs substantially the same as the D'487 patented design. The case may turn on whether the court gives more weight to the overall visual similarity or to the specific differences in the cushion, armrests, and base structure that the Plaintiff has identified.
- A Question of Ornamentality vs. Functionality: A central validity challenge will be whether features of the patented design, particularly the base structure, are primarily functional as alleged by the Plaintiff. The outcome of this inquiry will determine the scope of the protected design and could be dispositive of both infringement and validity.
- An Evidentiary Question of Prior Art: The case will involve a fact-intensive comparison of the patented design to the prior art references identified in the complaint. A key question will be whether those references are close enough to render the patented design either anticipated or obvious. The court's analysis of these invalidity arguments may be influenced by the fact that the patent's validity was recently confirmed in an ex parte reexamination proceeding.