DCT
1:25-cv-00943
Chendushiyishengtaiyushangmaoyouxiangongsi v. Wu
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Chendushiyishengtaiyushangmaoyouxiangongsi, et al. (China)
- Defendant: Junpeng Wu, Dongguan Mimao Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Zhonghongtian Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jeffrey H. Greger, PC; Aronberg Goldgehn
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00943, E.D. Va., 06/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, specifically the enforcement of U.S. patent rights against Plaintiffs' sales to customers in Illinois, occurred in the forum. Alternatively, they allege venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the court.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, a group of e-commerce sellers, seek a declaratory judgment that their adult novelty massager products do not infringe the Defendants' patent and/or that the patent is invalid in light of prior art, following Defendants' infringement complaints to Amazon that resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to personal massagers, specifically devices that combine a "clamping" stimulation mechanism with a "positioning" feature, such as a ring or stick, designed to secure the device during use.
- Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by Defendants filing patent infringement complaints with Amazon against Plaintiffs, leading to the delisting of Plaintiffs' products. The complaint centers on invalidity, alleging the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by a combination of prior public sales (the "Koxten Toy") and multiple foreign patent documents that allegedly predate the patent-in-suit's priority date. Plaintiffs also seek a finding that the case is exceptional, entitling them to attorneys' fees.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-04-21 | German patent document DE200520000061 ('061 reference) published |
| 2022-11-08 | Chinese patent document CN217761930 ('930 reference) published |
| 2023-12-29 | "Koxten Toy" allegedly first available for sale on Amazon |
| 2024-02-25 | "Koxten Toy" allegedly reviewed by a customer in the U.S. |
| 2024-04-04 | German patent document DE202024100299U1 (Dongguan reference) published |
| 2024-04-15 | '773 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-12-31 | '773 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-20 | Date of Amazon takedown notice sent to Plaintiffs |
| 2025-06-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,178,773 - "Massager"
- Issued: December 31, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that "some existing massagers are easy to fall off during use, resulting in bad user experiences" (’773 Patent, col. 1:22-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a massager designed to solve this problem by combining two main features: a "clamping part" for massage and stimulation and a "positioning portion" that takes the form of "at least one ring or an elongated stick" (’773 Patent, col. 1:30-41). The clamping part has two opposing "engagement portions" that can move toward or away from each other, while the positioning portion is intended to be placed, for example, around the penis/testicles or inserted into the vagina/rectum to secure the device and prevent it from falling off during use (’773 Patent, col. 1:45-55).
- Technical Importance: The claimed combination of a clamping massager with a distinct positioning member aims to provide a more stable and reliable user experience compared to prior devices that could be insecure during operation (’773 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint challenges all claims of the patent, with specific invalidity contentions against claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶¶78-82). The primary focus is on independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A clamping part, comprising a first engagement portion and a second engagement portion which are opposite to each other and made of a flexible material, with a cavity defined between them.
- A driving mechanism, comprising at least one swing arm disposed in at least one of the engagement portions for driving it to move toward or away from the other.
- A positioning portion which comprises at least one ring or an elongated stick.
- The complaint alleges invalidity of dependent claims 2-20 based on various prior art combinations (Compl. ¶¶78-81).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies a group of "structurally identical products" sold by the Plaintiffs on Amazon under three ASINs: B0DLMKKL4K, B0DLMDMWJZ, and B0D9PXBV8X, collectively referred to as "the Products" (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
The Products are described as "adult novelty massagers" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges that these Products were popular on Amazon and that Amazon constitutes the "primary sales channel" for the Plaintiffs, making access to the platform critical for competition (Compl. ¶¶32-34). The core of the plaintiffs' invalidity argument rests on the assertion that their Products are structurally identical to another product, the "Koxten Toy," which they allege was on sale and publicly known before the '773 Patent's priority date (Compl. ¶¶49-50, 78).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its primary argument is that the '773 patent is invalid. It alleges that to the extent the patent claims are construed to read on the Plaintiffs' Products, they must also read on prior art, particularly the "Koxten Toy," which Plaintiffs claim is structurally identical to their own products (Compl. ¶¶49-50). The following table summarizes the Plaintiffs' anticipation argument, which implicitly maps the features of the prior art Koxten Toy to the patent claims.
'773 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (as described for the prior art "Koxten Toy") | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a clamping part, comprising a first engagement portion and a second engagement portion which are opposite to each other and made of a flexible material, with a cavity defined between the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion; | The complaint alleges the Koxten Toy "includes all of the structures set forth in claims 1-6, 9-13, and 16" of the patent, which would include a clamping part with opposing flexible engagement portions. | ¶53, ¶78 | col. 10:55-60 |
| a driving mechanism, comprising at least one swing arm which is disposed in at least one of the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion for driving the at least one of the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion to move toward or away from the other; and | The complaint alleges the Koxten Toy contains the claimed structures, which would include a driving mechanism with a swing arm to actuate the engagement portions. | ¶53, ¶78 | col. 10:60-66 |
| a positioning portion which comprises at least one ring or an elongated stick; | The complaint alleges the Koxten Toy contains the claimed structures, which would include a positioning portion in the form of a ring or stick. | ¶53, ¶78 | col. 10:66-68 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Invalidity vs. Infringement: The central dispute is not over the technical operation of the Plaintiffs' products but over the validity of the '773 patent. The complaint's strategy appears to be conceding that its products practice the claims but arguing those claims are invalid because the "Koxten Toy" and other references also practice them and predate the patent.
- Prior Art Status: A key factual question will be whether the "Koxten Toy" qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This will depend on evidence proving its date of first public sale or use in the U.S. (Compl. ¶44, ¶47). The complaint provides a screenshot from an Amazon product page showing a "Date First Available" of December 29, 2023, which predates the patent's April 15, 2024 priority date (Compl. ¶44).
- Scope of Prior Art Disclosures: The court will need to determine if the cited foreign patent documents, such as the "Dongguan" reference, disclose every element of the asserted claims. The complaint provides an exploded-view figure from the Dongguan reference to illustrate its alleged disclosure of a clamping part, driving mechanism, and positioning portion (Compl. ¶59).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "positioning portion"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines a key feature distinguishing the invention. The claim requires this portion to comprise "at least one ring or an elongated stick." The Plaintiffs' invalidity case hinges on showing that the cited prior art references disclose structures that fall within this definition. The scope given to "ring" and "elongated stick" will therefore be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself ("at least one ring or an elongated stick") is a list of alternatives, suggesting the term is not limited to a single structure. The specification describes multiple embodiments, including a version with two rings and another with a single "arc-shaped stick," which may support a construction covering a variety of securing structures ('773 Patent, col. 4:30-36, col. 8:5-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited to structures that perform the specific function of being "disposed around the penis and/or the pair of testicles" or "inserted into the vagina or the rectum" as explicitly described in the summary and detailed description ('773 Patent, col. 1:49-55). Figures 1-3 show two distinct, complete rings, which could be used to argue for a narrower interpretation of that alternative.
VI. Other Allegations
- Exceptional Case Allegations: The complaint seeks an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, alleging this is an "extraordinary case" (Compl. ¶89). The basis for this allegation appears to be that the Defendants were "aware of the prior art at the time that they filed their complaints with Amazon," suggesting the infringement assertions were baseless or made in bad faith (Compl. ¶88).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to turn on two primary questions for the court:
A dispositive question of validity based on prior public use: Can the Plaintiffs provide sufficient evidence to prove that the "Koxten Toy" was publicly sold or available in the U.S. before the patent's April 15, 2024 priority date? If so, does that product embody every limitation of the asserted patent claims, rendering them anticipated?
A parallel question of validity based on prior publications: Do the cited foreign patent documents, particularly the "Dongguan" reference, either alone or in combination with other references, disclose all elements of the asserted claims, rendering them anticipated or obvious? The analysis will focus on whether the structures shown in those references, such as the one depicted in the complaint at paragraph 59, meet the limitations as defined in the claims.