DCT
2:25-cv-00364
Nice Choice Inc v. ShelterLogic Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nice Choice Inc. (California)
- Defendant: ShelterLogic Corp. (Connecticut) and PNC Bank National Association (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00364, W.D. Wash., 02/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred there, specifically citing Defendants' patent enforcement activities through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program, and noting that Amazon's headquarters is located within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "NICEC US Beach Chair" product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,867,466, and that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the mechanical design of portable, foldable chairs, a mature technology field where improvements often focus on safety, ease of use, and manufacturing cost.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendants' initiation of an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding against Plaintiff, creating what Plaintiff alleges is a justiciable controversy. Plaintiff cites two prior art references in its invalidity contentions. The complaint notes that ShelterLogic Corp. was the original patent owner and later assigned it to PNC Bank.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-15 | '466 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-01-16 | '466 Patent Issued |
| 2025-02-26 | Declaratory Judgment Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,867,466 - “Foldable Chair”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a potential "pinching hazard" that can occur when a user is opening or closing a foldable chair, specifically between moving frame elements ('466 Patent, col. 3:3-4; col. 4:59-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "cradle comprising a guide member" that guides one frame element (e.g., the seat bottom) into a secure, final position relative to another frame element (e.g., the seat base) during unfolding ('466 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-47). This mechanism is intended to ensure proper and safe engagement of the chair's frame components ('466 Patent, col. 7:27-33). The guide member can also be configured with curved end portions to create a clearance space, further mitigating the risk of pinching a user's hand ('466 Patent, col. 3:6-11).
- Technical Importance: In the crowded market for foldable chairs, this design purports to offer an improved safety feature that ensures consistent and secure deployment of the chair frame.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint challenges the validity of claims 1-18, and by extension contests infringement of any asserted claim ('466 Patent, col. 8:46; Compl. ¶¶ 20, 32-35). Independent claim 1 is representative of one key inventive concept.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A folding chair, comprising: a first frame element;
- a second frame element, wherein the first frame element moves from a first position... to a second position... against the second frame element;
- a cradle comprising a guide member that guides the first frame element into the cradle; and
- wherein the guide member is pivotally connected to both the first frame element and the second frame element.
- The complaint’s broad challenge to claims 1-18 suggests Plaintiff reserves the right to contest any dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff’s "NICEC US Beach Chair" sold on Amazon, identified by ASIN B0CS6TTLW8 and other related ASINs (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 20-21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused chair as a portable, foldable beach chair (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 20). From a technical standpoint, the plaintiff alleges its chair employs a "passive structural support system" rather than an active guiding mechanism (Compl. ¶26). Specifically, the chair is alleged to have a "link rod" that "passively follows the movement of the frame elements" and a "cradle" that is "functionally independent" from any pivotally connected guide member (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The following table summarizes Plaintiff Nice Choice's allegations of non-infringement for its NICEC US Beach Chair.
'466 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cradle comprising a guide member that guides the first frame element into the cradle | Plaintiff alleges its product's "link rod is not a guide member" because it "passively follows the movement of the frame elements" and does not actively guide them. The product is described as having a "passive structural support system." | ¶¶25-27 | col. 2:45-47 |
| wherein the guide member is pivotally connected to both the first frame element and the second frame element | Plaintiff alleges the cradle in its chair is "functionally independent and does not require a guide member pivotally connected to both the first and second frame elements." | ¶28 | col. 3:13-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute appears to center on the definition of "guides." Does the term, as used in the patent, require active direction of a frame element, or could it be read broadly enough to cover a component like the accused "link rod" that "passively follows" the movement of other parts? The plaintiff's framing suggests it will argue for a narrower definition requiring active guidance (Compl. ¶25).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused product's "link rod" is, in fact, "pivotally connected to both the first frame element and the second frame element." The complaint’s assertion that its cradle is "functionally independent" directly contests this structural limitation required by claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "guide member"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's entire non-infringement argument is premised on its product's "link rod" not meeting the definition of a "guide member" (Compl. ¶27). The construction of this term—specifically whether it implies active guidance or can include passive constraints—is therefore critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification defines the term "guide" in accordance with its "ordinary meaning" and states it "can include arrangements that may influence, restrain, restrict or limit movement of one element relative to another" ('466 Patent, col. 4:45-48). This language may support a construction that does not strictly require active or user-initiated guidance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses the invention in the context of solving a "pinching hazard" where a user's hands might be during operation ('466 Patent, col. 4:59-65). This context, which implies user interaction with the mechanism, may be used to argue that a "guide member" must be a component that actively assists the user in positioning the frame, as contrasted with a purely passive structural link. The complaint adopts this view, alleging the patent requires a member that "interacts with the user by manually pulling or guiding" (Compl. ¶26).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for both direct and indirect infringement but provides no specific factual allegations for analysis (Compl. ¶1).
- Willful Infringement: This section is not applicable, as the complaint is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer. Plaintiff does, however, request fees and damages based on Defendants' alleged "willful assertion of an invalid and unenforceable patent," which relates to a potential claim for exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285 rather than willful infringement by an infringer (Compl., Prayer for Relief, H).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court’s determination of two central issues:
A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "guide member", as defined and used in the ’466 Patent, be construed to read on a "link rod" that allegedly "passively follows" the movement of other components, or does the term require a structure that provides active guidance to a frame element?
A dispositive issue will be a question of fact: Does the accused beach chair’s "link rod" and "cradle" assembly meet the claim limitation requiring a guide member that is "pivotally connected to both the first frame element and the second frame element," or is the cradle, as the plaintiff alleges, "functionally independent" of such a connection?