DCT
1:25-cv-01289
Zhuhai Kelitong Electronic Co Ltd v. Lee
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zhuhai Kelitong Electronic Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Hui-Ling Lee (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Terry Frank Law; Stratum Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01289, E.D. Va., 08/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue in the Eastern District of Virginia is asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 293, which vests jurisdiction over non-U.S. patentees.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its can opener products do not infringe Defendant’s patent and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following Defendant's infringement complaints to Amazon that resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff's products.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of automatic, motorized can openers, a segment of the consumer household goods market.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant Lee making a patent infringement claim to Amazon, which led to the removal of five of Plaintiff Zhuhai’s product listings. The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit is invalid and unenforceable, in part due to Defendant's alleged failure during prosecution to disclose a prior-filed United Kingdom patent that shares the same inventor, applicant, and technical disclosure.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-06-18 | Application date for UK Patent GB2453615B alleged as prior art |
| 2008-07-23 | First publication date for UK Patent GB2453615B |
| 2012-09-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,955,227 application filed |
| 2015-02-17 | U.S. Patent No. 8,955,227 issued |
| 2025-02-20 | Plaintiff's Amazon storefronts allegedly closed |
| 2025-03-09 | Defendant allegedly made patent infringement claim to Amazon |
| 2025-08-04 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,955,227 - "Can Opener"
Issued February 17, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional manual can openers as requiring significant user force and the use of both hands (one to hold the can, one to operate the opener), which is identified as an "inconvenience to the user" (’895 Patent, col. 1:25-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an automatic, motorized can opener that clamps onto a can lid and cuts it without requiring the user to manually apply force or hold the device during operation (’895 Patent, col. 2:4-15). The core of the solution is a specific gear train, where a drive motor powers a driving gear, which in turn engages a series of interconnected driven gears (first, second, and third), a cam, and a torsion spring to automatically move a cutting wheel and an idling wheel to clamp, cut, and separate the lid from the can (’895 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to provide a fully automated can opening process, separating the lid from the can so it can be "opened easily and quickly" and cutting the rim smoothly to avoid "sharp burs" for user safety (’895 Patent, col. 2:12-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’895 Patent recites:
- A housing with a mounting seat.
- A driving gear rotatably mounted on the mounting seat.
- A reduction transmission device with a drive motor, connected to the driving gear.
- A cutting wheel rotated in concert with the driving gear.
- A slide movably mounted on the housing.
- An idling wheel mounted on the slide and movable relative to the cutting wheel.
- A first driven gear rotatably mounted and meshing with the driving gear.
- A second driven gear rotatably mounted in the housing.
- A torsion spring biased between the first and second driven gears.
- A third driven gear rotatably mounted and meshing with the second driven gear.
- A cam mounted on and rotated by the third driven gear to move the slide.
- The second driven gear having an arcuate guiding slot.
- The first driven gear having a protrusion mounted in the guiding slot.
- Wherein rotation of the first driven gear causes the protrusion to move in the slot, rotating the second driven gear and compressing the torsion spring.
- The complaint notes the patent contains five additional dependent claims (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies can openers sold by Plaintiff Zhuhai on five Amazon storefronts under various brand names, including XINSTEMAID, Syaws, DERNORUS, Kordory, and CIRCLE JOY (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused can openers achieve their function in a "distinct" way from the patented invention (Compl. ¶32). Instead of the claimed multi-gear and cam linkage, the accused products allegedly realize the "position adjustment of the sliding plate" through a different mechanism: "the forward and reverse rotation of the motor, as well as the cooperative linkage and intermittent disengagement between the drive gear and the eccentric disk" (Compl. ¶32). The products are sold in the U.S. via Amazon, a "primary national marketplace" (Compl. ¶39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, alleging that its products are missing numerous elements required by Claim 1 of the ’895 patent.
’895 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged (Non-)Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first driven gear rotatably mounted in the housing and meshing with the driving gear | The accused product's driving gear allegedly does not engage with a first driven gear. The complaint asserts that based on a product image, the area for this gear is an "empty space" (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 2:50-52 |
| a second driven gear rotatably mounted in the housing | The accused product allegedly has "no second driven gear." The complaint states a product image shows the corresponding installation position is an "empty space" (Compl. ¶23). | ¶23 | col. 2:66-67 |
| a torsion spring biased between the first driven gear and the second driven gear to connect the first driven gear and the second driven gear | Because the accused product allegedly lacks a first and second driven gear, the complaint argues it is "impossible for there to be a torsion spring set between them" (Compl. ¶24). | ¶24 | col. 2:53-56 |
| a third driven gear rotatably mounted in the housing and meshing with the second driven gear | The complaint alleges that the absence of a second driven gear makes it "impossible to have a third driven gear that meshes with the second driven gear" (Compl. ¶25). | ¶25 | col. 2:56-58 |
| a cam mounted on and rotated by the third driven gear and received in the aperture of the slide | The absence of a third driven gear means "there are no other structures connected to the third driven gear," implying the lack of a cam driven by it (Compl. ¶26). | ¶26 | col. 2:58-62 |
| the second driven gear has a surface provided with an arcuate guiding slot | The accused product allegedly "does not have a feature corresponding to 'guiding slot'" (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27 | col. 4:2-3 |
| the first driven gear has a surface provided with a protrusion mounted in the guiding slot of the second driven gear | The accused product allegedly "does not have a feature corresponding to 'protrusion'" (Compl. ¶28). | ¶28 | col. 4:3-5 |
| when the first driven gear is rotated...the protrusion...is movable in the guiding slot...to drive...the second driven gear and to compress the torsion spring | The complaint states that these "technical features are not present in the infringing comparison product" (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 4:5-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Questions: The central dispute appears to be factual: does the accused product contain the specific mechanical components (first/second/third driven gears, torsion spring, cam, protrusion/slot) recited in Claim 1? The complaint’s repeated reference to "empty space" suggests a stark structural difference (Compl. ¶22, ¶23).
- Technical Questions: A key technical question, raised by the complaint, is whether the accused product's alleged mechanism—"forward and reverse rotation of the motor" and "intermittent disengagement between the drive gear and the eccentric disk"—is fundamentally different from the claimed gear-and-cam linkage (Compl. ¶32). This allegation directly counters any potential argument under the doctrine of equivalents.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "first driven gear", "second driven gear", "third driven gear"
- Context and Importance: These terms define the core mechanical linkage of the invention. The Plaintiff's entire non-infringement theory is premised on the complete absence of these elements (Compl. ¶22, ¶23, ¶25). The court's construction of what constitutes each of these "gears" will be dispositive for literal infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves describe the gears functionally (e.g., "meshing with the driving gear"). A party could argue that any component performing this claimed function meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and Figure 3 depict these as distinct, toothed, circular gears (items 60, 70, 50) in a specific spatial and functional relationship (’895 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 3:4-7, 44-54). This detailed depiction of a specific embodiment may support a narrower construction requiring discrete, conventional gear structures.
The Term: "torsion spring biased between the first driven gear and the second driven gear"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes a specific relational and functional element that Plaintiff alleges is entirely missing (Compl. ¶24). Proving the absence of this single element could be sufficient for a finding of non-infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any resilient member that stores and releases energy to effect reverse rotation qualifies as a "torsion spring," regardless of its specific form or placement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the spring's function with specificity: it "stores a restoring force" that is used to drive the gear train in reverse after the lid is cut (’895 Patent, col. 4:8-11, col. 5:1-4). Figure 3 shows a specific coil spring (item 64) positioned between the first and second driven gears, supporting an interpretation that requires this specific type and placement of component.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- This being a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, the complaint denies that the Plaintiff "directly or indirectly" infringes any claim (Compl. ¶20). No facts are alleged by either party that would form the basis of an indirect infringement claim.
Invalidity and Unenforceability
- The complaint alleges that the '895 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶35). The basis for this allegation is Defendant Lee's alleged failure to disclose UK Patent No. GB2453615B to the USPTO during prosecution, despite it allegedly sharing the same inventor, applicant, address, and technical disclosure as the '895 patent (Compl. ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- An Evidentiary Question of Structure: Is the Plaintiff's description of its product accurate? The case may hinge on a straightforward factual determination of whether the accused can openers physically contain the specific gear train (first, second, and third driven gears), torsion spring, and cam assembly mandated by Claim 1, or if they are absent as alleged.
- A Question of Prior Art and Conduct: Does the undisclosed UK patent GB2453615B, allegedly from the same inventor, anticipate or make obvious the claims of the '895 patent? Furthermore, the court will have to determine whether the failure to disclose this reference to the USPTO was done with an intent to deceive, which would be necessary to support the claim of inequitable conduct.
- A Question of Technical Operation: If the accused product does not literally infringe, does its alleged alternative mechanism (motor reversal and an "eccentric disk") perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed gear-and-cam linkage? The complaint's assertion of a "distinct" operating principle frames this as a central point of dispute for any analysis under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶32).