DCT
2:25-cv-00337
Chendushiyishengtaiyushangmaoyouxiangongsi v. Wu
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Chendushiyishengtaiyushangmaoyouxiangongsi et al. (a group of Chinese companies)
- 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: 2:25-cv-00337, 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 Defendants' interference with Plaintiffs' e-commerce sales to Illinois customers, occurred in the forum.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, a group of e-commerce sellers, seek a declaratory judgment that they do not infringe the Defendants' patent and that the patent is invalid, following Defendants' complaints to Amazon.com that resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the adult novelty device market, specifically personal massagers incorporating mechanical clamping and positioning features.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute arises from infringement complaints filed by the Defendants through Amazon.com's intellectual property enforcement program, which led to the takedown of Plaintiffs' product listings around February 2025. The complaint for declaratory judgment cites several prior art references, including products allegedly on sale more than one year before the patent's priority date, as the basis for its invalidity contentions.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-04-21 | '061 prior art reference published |
| 2022-11-08 | '930 prior art reference published |
| 2023-12-29 | "Koxten Toy" prior art product first available on Amazon |
| 2024-02-25 | "Koxten Toy" product review confirms prior sale |
| 2024-04-04 | "Dongguan" prior art reference published |
| 2024-04-15 | '773 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-12-31 | '773 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-20 | Amazon sends takedown notice to Plaintiffs |
| 2025-02-25 | Plaintiffs' product listings removed from Amazon |
| 2025-06-05 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,178,773 - "Massager," Issued Dec. 31, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that some existing massagers are "easy to fall off during use, resulting in bad user experiences" (’773 Patent, col. 2:22-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a massager with a dual-feature design to solve this problem. It combines a "clamping part" with two opposing, flexible "engagement portions" that are mechanically driven to move toward or away from each other, simulating a mouth to provide clamping massage, with a separate "positioning portion" designed to secure the device to the user's body (’773 Patent, col. 2:28-41; col. 3:26-44). The positioning portion can be either rings, for placement around a penis and/or testicles, or an elongated stick for insertion, thereby preventing the device from falling off during use (’773 Patent, col. 3:45-56).
- Technical Importance: The claimed combination of an active clamping mechanism with a passive positioning aid aims to provide a more secure and stable user experience for wearable personal massagers.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint challenges the validity of claims 1-20 (’773 Patent, Compl. ¶¶ 78-82). Independent claim 1 is central.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A clamping part with a first and second opposing engagement portion made of a flexible material, defining a cavity between them.
- A driving mechanism with at least one swing arm disposed in one or both engagement portions to drive them toward or away from each other.
- A positioning portion comprising at least one ring or an elongated stick.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the products as a group of "structurally identical" adult novelty massagers sold by the Plaintiffs on Amazon.com under three ASINs: B0DLMKKL4K, B0DLMDMWJZ, and B0D9PXBV8X ("the Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29, 31).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Products as "adult novelty massagers" that were "popular on Amazon" (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32). The complaint alleges that Amazon is the "primary sales channel" for the Plaintiffs and that access to the U.S. market via Amazon is critical for competition (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34). The core of the complaint is that these products do not infringe and/or the patent is invalid based on prior art, including the "Koxten Toy" which allegedly "incorporates the same relevant structures as the Accused Products" (Compl. ¶49).
IV. Analysis of Invalidity Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed technical analysis of non-infringement. Instead, its primary technical arguments support its request for a declaratory judgment of invalidity, alleging that several prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claims of the ’773 patent. The complaint provides a narrative breakdown of how the German patent document DE202024100299U1 ("Dongguan") allegedly anticipates the claims.
’773 Patent Invalidity Allegations (based on the Dongguan Reference)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Anticipating Feature in Dongguan Reference | 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 Dongguan reference allegedly includes a "clamping part (A, B)" with "engagement portions (A, B) connected at two ends to enclose a cavity." | ¶¶60, 63 | col. 2:28-34 |
| 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... to move toward or away from the other; | The Dongguan reference is alleged to include a driving mechanism comprising a motor (8, 12), rotary block (9), connecting rod (10), and mouth linkage (11). | ¶61 | col. 2:34-39 |
| and a positioning portion which comprises at least one ring or an elongated stick; | The Dongguan reference is alleged to include a "positioning portion (17)." An exploded view of this reference is included in the complaint. | ¶62 | col. 2:39-41 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the components identified in the Dongguan reference, such as "positioning portion (17)," perform the same function in the same way as the elements required by the claims of the ’773 patent. The complaint includes Figure 3 from the Dongguan reference, an exploded diagram showing the mechanical assembly (Compl. ¶59). A court will need to determine if this prior art structure meets every limitation of the asserted claims.
- Scope Questions: The complaint also alleges the "Koxten Toy," a product sold before the patent's priority date, anticipates the claims (Compl. ¶78). A key question will be whether the claims of the ’773 patent, if construed broadly enough to cover the Plaintiffs' products, would also necessarily read on the Koxten Toy, thus rendering them invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "positioning portion"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because it distinguishes the invention's securing mechanism from its active "clamping part." The complaint's invalidity case hinges on showing that prior art, such as the Dongguan reference's "positioning portion (17)," meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, defining the term as comprising "at least one ring or an elongated stick" (’773 Patent, col. 10:4-5). This disjunctive "or" suggests the term covers two distinct structural categories, potentially encompassing a wide variety of shapes used for positioning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific functional descriptions for each embodiment. The rings are for being "disposed around the penis and/or the pair of testicles of the man to enhance the erection," while the stick is for being "inserted into the vagina or the rectum" (’773 Patent, col. 3:50-55). A party could argue the term should be limited to structures capable of performing these specific securing functions, potentially excluding general handles or other body parts of a device that are not rings or insertable sticks.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Defendants were aware of the cited prior art when they filed their infringement complaints with Amazon (Compl. ¶88). Based on this, the Plaintiffs seek a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle them to an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶89; Prayer for Relief ¶3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on the validity of the ’773 patent in light of the prior art identified by the Plaintiffs. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A Question of Anticipation: Does the prior art, particularly the "Koxten Toy" product and the "Dongguan" patent reference, disclose every element of the asserted claims as arranged in the patent? The complaint's visual evidence, such as the exploded diagram from the Dongguan reference (Compl. ¶59), will be central to this factual determination.
- A Question of Claim Scope: How broadly will the term "positioning portion" be construed? A narrow construction focused on the specific ring and insertable stick embodiments described in the patent may allow the patent to survive the invalidity challenge, but it could also support the Plaintiffs' argument for non-infringement. Conversely, a broader construction may make the claims more susceptible to invalidation by the cited prior art.