DCT
2:25-cv-00272
Trade Associates Inc v. Amazon Logistics Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Trade Associates, Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: Amazon Logistics, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP
- Case Identification: [Trade Associates, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/trade-associates-inc) v. [Amazon Logistics, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/amazon-logistics-inc), 2:25-cv-00272, W.D. Wash., 02/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in the district, with its principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain third-party sanding blocks sold on Defendant’s e-commerce platform infringe four patents related to the chemical composition and manufacturing methods of flexible, conformable sanding blocks.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns elastomeric sanding blocks used in the automotive and marine finishing industries, which are designed to conform to both flat and curved surfaces to provide an even finish.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express ("APEX") proceeding on October 18, 2024, notifying Defendant of infringement of the '403 Patent by a specific accused product. Defendant rejected the submission. This event is cited to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-10-02 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit ('403, '220, '847, '103) |
| 2016-08-30 | '847 Patent Issued |
| 2017-08-15 | '403 Patent Issued |
| 2018-05-22 | '220 Patent Issued |
| 2022-04-05 | '103 Patent Issued |
| 2024-10-18 | Plaintiff initiates APEX proceeding against Defendant for '403 Patent |
| 2024-10-21 | Defendant rejects Plaintiff's APEX submission |
| 2024-10-25 | Plaintiff escalates APEX submission; Defendant confirms rejection |
| 2025-02-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,731,403 - "Hand-Held Conformable Sanding Block" (issued August 15, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes how traditional sanding blocks, such as those made of wood or cork, are rigid and do not conform to curved surfaces common on automobile bodies. This can result in uneven sanding, a "rippling effect," and damage to the underlying surface (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12; ’403 Patent, col. 1:26-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an elastomeric sanding block that is flexible enough to conform to curved surfaces yet sufficiently rigid to sand flat surfaces evenly. This is achieved through a specific material composition that is explicitly "free of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer" and instead relies on a blend of low-density polyethylene homopolymer and a blowing agent to achieve the desired physical properties (’403 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-8).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a single tool suitable for the varied contours of modern automotive bodies, improving the quality of refinishing work while preventing surface damage (Compl. ¶ 12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent product Claim 1 and independent method Claim 10 (Compl. ¶ 25).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an elastomeric sanding block with the following key elements:
- Conformable to curved or flat surfaces
- Shore A hardness from about 30 to 90
- Made from a composition free of ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer
- The composition comprises low-density polyethylene homopolymer (35-70% by weight) and a blowing agent (1.5-4.5% by weight)
- Independent Claim 10 recites a method for manufacturing the block with similar compositional limitations.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 25).
U.S. Patent No. 9,975,220 - "Hand-Held Conformable Sanding Block" (issued May 22, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’403 Patent: the inadequacy of traditional rigid sanding blocks for use on contoured surfaces (’220 Patent, col. 1:30-51).
- The Patented Solution: This invention also describes an elastomeric, conformable sanding block made from a composition that is free of EVA copolymer. The composition claimed here is distinguished by its inclusion of a specific percentage of filler, in addition to the low-density polyethylene homopolymer, to achieve the desired balance of flexibility and hardness (’220 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:56-65).
- Technical Importance: This formulation represents an alternative pathway to creating a sanding block with the desired physical properties for automotive finishing, using a filler as a key component of the non-EVA blend (Compl. ¶ 12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent product Claim 5 (Compl. ¶ 43).
- Independent Claim 5 recites an elastomeric sanding block with the following key elements:
- Conformable to curved or flat surfaces
- Shore A hardness from about 30 to 90
- Made from a composition free of ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer
- The composition comprises low-density polyethylene homopolymer (35-70% by weight) and a filler (25-60% by weight)
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶ 43).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,427,847
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,427,847, "Hand-Held Conformable Sanding Block," issued August 30, 2016 (Compl. ¶ 16).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the same problem of sanding curved surfaces. However, unlike the '403 and '220 Patents, the solution disclosed in the '847 Patent is an elastomeric block made from a composition that includes ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer. The claimed composition is an admixture of EVA and low-density polyethylene homopolymer, along with a blowing agent and a pigment (’847 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent product Claim 1 and independent method Claim 6 (Compl. ¶ 54).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Elyaspedy Infringing Sanding Blocks" and "Zhenx Infringing Sanding Blocks" infringe by being made of a composition that includes an admixture of EVA copolymer and low-density polyethylene homopolymer (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 58-59).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,292,103
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,292,103, "Hand-Held Conformable Sanding Block," issued April 5, 2022 (Compl. ¶ 17).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent also discloses a conformable sanding block. Its claimed composition is more complex, requiring an admixture of three different polymers: ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer, low-density polyethylene homopolymer, and a metallocene catalyzed ethylene-a-olefin copolymer. The composition also includes a filler and a pigment specified as carbon (’103 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent product Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 72).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Elyaspedy" and "Zhenx" products infringe by being made of a three-part polymer admixture, a filler, and a carbon pigment as claimed (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 76-79).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies three sets of accused products sold on Defendant's platform: "Sdanbom Infringing Sanding Blocks," "Elyaspedy Infringing Sanding Blocks," and "Zhenx Infringing Sanding Blocks" (collectively, the "Infringing Sanding Blocks") (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 23, 53).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as kits of flexible sanding blocks of various shapes and sizes for automotive sanding (Compl. ¶ 20). The complaint alleges these blocks are "skillfully crafted... featured with a certain degree of flexibility, allowing them to fit surfaces better" (Compl. ¶ 27). A visual from an accused product listing shows a block being bent by hand to illustrate its flexibility (Compl. Ex. 5 at 5). The complaint alleges two distinct compositions: the Sdanbom blocks are accused of being made from an EVA-free polyethylene blend, while the Elyaspedy and Zhenx blocks are accused of being made from EVA-containing polymer admixtures (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 58, 76).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'403 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An elastomeric sanding block conformable to curved or flat surfaces, | The Sdanbom block is described as having a "degree of flexibility, allowing them to fit surfaces better." | ¶27 | col. 2:1-4 |
| wherein the elastomeric sanding block has a Shore A hardness ranging from about 30 to about 90, | The Sdanbom block is alleged to have a Shore A hardness of 42.7 ± 1. | ¶28 | col. 2:9-10 |
| and wherein the elastomeric sanding block is made from a composition free of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, | The complaint alleges that despite advertising to the contrary, the Sdanbom block does not contain EVA and instead comprises a "non-EVA polyethylene blend." | ¶29 | col. 4:58-59 |
| the composition comprising: low-density polyethylene homopolymer, wherein low-density polyethylene is in an amount that ranges from about 35 to about 70 percent of the composition by weight; | Alleged on "information and belief" that the Sdanbom block contains low-density polyethylene homopolymer within this weight percentage range. | ¶31 | col. 4:62-65 |
| and a blowing agent in an amount that ranges from about 1.5 to about 4.5 percent of the composition by weight. | Alleged on "information and belief" that the Sdanbom block contains a blowing agent within this weight percentage range, as it is a necessary component for such foam products. | ¶32 | col.4:66-68 |
'220 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An elastomeric sanding block conformable to curved or flat surfaces, | The Sdanbom block is described as flexible and able to "fit surfaces better." | ¶45 | col. 2:1-4 |
| wherein the elastomeric sanding block has a Shore A hardness ranging from about 30 to about 90, | The Sdanbom block is alleged to have a Shore A hardness of 42.7 ± 1. | ¶46 | col. 2:9-10 |
| and wherein the elastomeric sanding block is made from a composition free of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, | The complaint alleges the Sdanbom block is made from a "non-EVA polyethylene blend." | ¶47 | col. 4:58-59 |
| the composition comprising: low-density polyethylene homopolymer... in an amount that ranges from about 35 to about 70 percent of the composition by weight; | Alleged on "information and belief" that the Sdanbom block contains low-density polyethylene homopolymer within this weight percentage range. | ¶49 | col. 4:62-65 |
| and a filler in an amount that ranges from about 25 to about 60 percent of the composition by weight. | Alleged on "information and belief" that the Sdanbom block contains a filler within this weight percentage range, as it is a necessary component for such foam products. | ¶50 | col. 5:2-4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Question (Composition): A central point of contention will be the actual chemical composition of the Sdanbom blocks. The complaint alleges infringement of EVA-free patents by asserting, contrary to the product's likely marketing, that the blocks are in fact "free of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer" (Compl. ¶ 29, 47). This creates a direct factual dispute that will require discovery and material testing.
- Scope Question: The case raises the question of how different accused products map to different patents. The complaint bifurcates its allegations, accusing the Sdanbom product of infringing the two EVA-free patents ('403, '220) while accusing the Elyaspedy and Zhenx products of infringing the two EVA-containing patents ('847, '103). This suggests a strategy of pleading in the alternative based on the potential compositions of different products sold on Defendant's platform.
- Evidentiary Question: For multiple claim elements related to specific weight percentages of chemical components, the complaint relies on "information and belief" and argues that the product's physical properties (e.g., flexibility, hardness) would be "materially impact[ed]" if the composition fell outside the claimed ranges (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 31-32, 49-50). The sufficiency of this inferential pleading versus direct evidence of composition may be a focus of early motions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "composition free of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer" (from Claim 1 of '403 Patent and Claim 5 of '220 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement allegations against the Sdanbom product. The complaint alleges the product meets this negative limitation, which may contradict the product's own marketing or common industry formulations. The definition of "free of" will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it means absolutely zero presence or allows for de minimis or trace amounts—could determine the outcome of infringement for the '403 and '220 patents.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., allowing trace amounts): A party could argue that in the context of industrial chemical processes, "free of" means not intentionally added as a primary component and does not exclude unavoidable impurities. The specification does not appear to explicitly define the term, which may support an argument for applying a standard industry meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., strictly zero): The plain language of the claim is an absolute negative limitation. A party would argue that "free of" means complete absence. The prosecution history (not provided in the complaint) would be highly relevant to determine if the applicant distinguished prior art by adding this limitation, potentially creating a clear disavowal of any EVA content. The '403 patent's abstract confusingly mentions EVA, but the claim language itself is unambiguous, and claims, not the abstract, define the scope of the invention.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement of the '403 Patent has been willful since at least October 18, 2024, the date Plaintiff initiated an APEX proceeding that allegedly provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement (Compl. ¶ 40). For the other three patents, willfulness is premised on the filing of the complaint itself, establishing post-suit knowledge. The prayer for relief seeks trebled damages for willful infringement of all asserted patents (Compl. p. 23, ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of material fact: What are the actual chemical compositions of the accused Sdanbom, Elyaspedy, and Zhenx sanding blocks? The case’s viability hinges on whether these compositions, as determined through discovery and expert testing, fall within the specific, and at times contradictory, compositional limitations of the four asserted patents.
- The primary legal question will be one of claim construction: What is the scope of the negative limitation "composition free of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer"? Whether this term requires absolute absence or permits trace amounts will be critical to the infringement analysis for the '403 and '220 patents.
- A key evidentiary question will be the sufficiency of pleading on "information and belief." The complaint infers the presence and percentages of key chemical components based on the products' observed physical properties. The court may need to address whether these inferences are plausible enough to proceed to discovery, where the factual disputes over composition can be resolved.