DCT

2:25-cv-01054

Shenzhenshi Sichuangtiancheng Dianzishangwu Youxiangongsi v. Hong Kong Maysee Trading Co Ltmited

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01054, W.D. Wash., 09/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper because Defendant, a non-U.S. resident, is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district. Jurisdiction is based on Defendant sending patent infringement notifications to Amazon, which is headquartered in the district, leading to the removal of Plaintiff's product listings.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Momcozy" brand maternity body pillows do not infringe Defendant’s design patent and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of C-shaped or U-shaped full-body pillows, a product category with a significant consumer market, particularly for maternity support.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant's infringement notifications to Amazon.com, which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff's products. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of invalidating prior art during the patent's prosecution, a fact central to its invalidity and unenforceability claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-04-16 Prior art pillow (ASIN B0CNVQDFNF) first available on Amazon
2020-04-19 Prior art "Elover Pregnancy Pillow" (ASIN B0C4PQ55G9) first available on Amazon
2020-06-11 Prior art "Elover Pregnancy Pillow" verified as publicly sold
2020-08-28 Prior art pillow (ASIN B08P457TLT) first available on Amazon
2020-09-17 ’971 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date)
2021-03-02 Examiner cites "Elover Pregnancy Pillow U-Shaped" during prosecution of ’971 Patent
2021-07-06 ’971 Patent Issue Date
2025-03-10 Defendant submits infringement notifications to Amazon regarding Plaintiff's products
2025-09-10 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D923,971 - "Pillow"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D923,971, "Pillow," issued July 6, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but instead protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The filing addresses the need for a distinct ornamental design for a full-body support pillow.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a pillow as depicted in its figures. The design features a generally C-shaped or asymmetric U-shaped body with two arms of unequal length connected by a curved top portion. One arm is a relatively straight, elongated section, while the other is a shorter, inwardly curved section featuring a contoured "bump" on its inner edge ('971 Patent, Figs. 1-3). The overall visual impression is created by the specific proportions, curvatures, and arrangement of these elements.
  • Technical Importance: In consumer goods markets like pillows, distinct ornamental designs are critical for brand differentiation and establishing a recognizable product identity.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described."
  • The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
    • An asymmetric, generally U-shaped pillow body.
    • A longer, relatively straight elongated arm.
    • A shorter, inwardly curved arm.
    • A contoured "bump" on the inner side of the shorter arm.
    • A specific positional relationship where the end of the longer arm extends beyond the end of the shorter, curved arm.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Momcozy" brand maternity body pillows sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com, identified by various ASINs including B0DT15Q3HV and B0DT3TD998 (collectively, the "Accused Pillows") (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 18).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Pillows are full-body pillows designed to provide support for users, particularly during pregnancy (Compl. ¶5). Plaintiff alleges they are sold exclusively through Amazon.com to customers in the United States, including Washington (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 16). The complaint frames the dispute as arising from Defendant's efforts to remove these products from the Amazon marketplace through infringement notifications (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following table summarizes Plaintiff's allegations of visual distinctions between the claimed design and the Accused Pillows. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the two designs are substantially the same, such that the observer might be induced to purchase one supposing it to be the other.

  • ’971 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations
Claimed Design Feature (’971 Patent) Alleged Distinguishing Feature of Accused Pillow Complaint Citation
The elongated section extends over the curved bottom section. The curved bottom section extends over the elongated section. ¶19
The openings between the pillow arms have a specific size and proportion. The Accused Pillows have smaller openings. ¶20
The elongated section of the design maintains a constant width. The elongated section of the Accused Pillows gradually widens. ¶21
The curved right "bump" portion is positioned lower on the pillow's arm. The corresponding "bump" on the Accused Pillow is positioned much closer to the top end. ¶21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Overall Visual Impression: The central question will be whether the specific differences articulated by the Plaintiff, when viewed in the context of the overall designs, are significant enough to preclude a finding of substantial similarity by an ordinary observer. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison arguing that the end portions of the pillows are arranged in an "opposite fashion" (Compl. p. 5).
    • Scope Questions: The dispute will test the scope of the claimed design. The question is whether the ’971 patent’s protection is narrow, limited to the exact proportions and features shown, or broad enough to cover pillows with the variations present in the accused product. The complaint's visual evidence highlights these alleged differences, such as the shape and position of an inner "bump" (Compl. p. 6).
    • Prior Art Comparison (Invalidity): The complaint alleges that the Accused Pillow is "materially identical" to prior art pillows, such as the "Elover Pregnancy Pillow" (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33). This raises the question of whether Defendant's infringement allegation against the Accused Pillow is effectively an unenforceable assertion of rights over the prior art, which would support Plaintiff's invalidity claim. The complaint includes a visual comparison between the prior art and the Accused Pillow to support this point (Compl. p. 9).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for a design patent focuses on the overall visual appearance of the design as shown in the drawings, rather than the definition of written terms. The single claim--"The ornamental design for a pillow, as shown and described"--is defined entirely by the patent figures. Therefore, there are no specific terms for construction. The analysis will center on the visual scope of the design as a whole, considering the contours, proportions, and interrelation of the pillow's constituent parts as depicted in Figures 1-7 of the ’971 Patent. The court's interpretation will determine how much deviation from the drawings is permissible before a design is no longer considered "substantially the same."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Invalidity: Plaintiff alleges the ’971 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as anticipated by or obvious in light of prior art (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 31). The complaint identifies several specific prior art maternity pillows sold on Amazon.com before the patent's priority date (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34; pp. 9-10).
  • Unenforceability: The complaint suggests a basis for unenforceability by alleging that Defendant was aware of materially similar prior art during prosecution, as the examiner cited an "Elover Pregnancy Pillow" (Compl. ¶36). Plaintiff argues that by accusing a product that is itself "materially identical" to prior art, Defendant is engaging in improper conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 42).
  • Exceptional Case: Plaintiff seeks a declaration that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle it to an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 37).
  • State Law Claims: The complaint includes claims for tortious interference with contractual relations and business expectancy, alleging Defendant's infringement notices to Amazon were "objectively baseless" and intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's contract and business relationship with Amazon (Compl. ¶¶ 38-54).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A Question of Visual Similarity: Will an ordinary observer, examining the overall visual impression of the Accused Pillow and the ’971 patented design, find them to be substantially the same? The case will likely depend on the perceived significance of the specific differences alleged by the Plaintiff, such as the relative extension of the pillow's arms and the position of its contoured features.
  2. A Question of Validity Over Prior Art: Does the collection of prior art pillows cited in the complaint, allegedly available on Amazon before the patent's priority date, anticipate or render obvious the claimed design of the ’971 patent? The plaintiff's assertion that its own accused product is "materially identical" to this prior art creates a direct challenge to the patent's validity.
  3. A Question of Enforcement Conduct: Did the Defendant submit infringement notifications to Amazon with knowledge that its claims were "objectively baseless" due to non-infringement or the existence of invalidating prior art? The resolution of this question will be central to Plaintiff's tortious interference and exceptional case allegations.