DCT

2:25-cv-01313

Cixishihualongdianziyouxiangongsi v. Seven Sparta Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01313, W.D. Wash., 07/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant directed enforcement activity at Washington by filing an infringement complaint through Amazon's complaint program, which Plaintiff claims is administered from Seattle and caused harm within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its automotive cup holder expander does not infringe Defendant's design patent, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following Defendant's successful request to have Plaintiff's product delisted from Amazon.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of aftermarket cup holder expanders, a consumer automotive accessory designed to adapt standard vehicle cup holders to accommodate larger beverage containers.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant's June 23, 2025, design patent infringement complaint to Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listing. The complaint alleges this is part of a pattern, citing previous infringement complaints by the Defendant in September 2024 concerning a different patent. The core of the case rests on allegations that Defendant's patent is invalid over prior art products that were publicly sold more than one year before the patent's filing date, and that Defendant engaged in inequitable conduct by failing to disclose this art to the USPTO.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-08-22 Alleged first public listing of "Swigzy Product" prior art on Amazon
2019-03-13 Alleged first public offer for sale of "Seven Sparta" branded prior art on Amazon
2019-06-11 Alleged first public listing of "Integral Product" prior art on Amazon
2020-07-13 '229 Patent Filing Date
2020-12-29 '229 Patent Issue Date
2023-07-21 Publication date of Plaintiff's "Earlier Version" accused product
2024-01-06 Publication date of Plaintiff's "Later Version" accused product
2024-09-11 Defendant's prior infringement complaint to Amazon re: a different patent
2025-06-23 Defendant's infringement complaint to Amazon re: '229 Patent
2025-07-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D906,229 - "VEHICLE CUP HOLDER EXPANDER"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D906,229, "VEHICLE CUP HOLDER EXPANDER," issued December 29, 2020 (the "’229 Patent"). (Compl. ¶16; D'229 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, as is typical for design patents. The implicit context is the creation of a new, original, and ornamental appearance for a vehicle cup holder expander, an article whose function is to allow oversized containers to fit in standard car cup holders. (Compl. ¶18).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’229 Patent protects the specific visual appearance of a cup holder expander. The claimed ornamental design, as shown in solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of a cylindrical upper cup portion with a U-shaped side cutout for a mug handle, a base with an adjustable clamping mechanism, and distinctive internal features. ('229 Patent, Figs. 1-7). Key ornamental features include four trapezoidal protrusions on the inner rim, a smooth exterior surface on the upper body, and a raised ring separating the body from the base. ('229 Patent, Figs. 1, 2, 6).
  • Technical Importance: The ornamental design serves to create a distinct visual identity for the product, which may differentiate it in a competitive market for consumer automotive accessories. (Compl. ¶¶20-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of the single claim of the ’229 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶43-51).
  • The claim is for "the ornamental design for a vehicle cup holder expander, as shown and described." ('229 Patent, Claim). Its essential visual elements, as shown in the patent figures, include:
    • The overall configuration of a cylindrical expander with an adjustable base.
    • A U-shaped cutout on the side of the upper body.
    • Four inwardly-facing, trapezoid-shaped protrusions mounted on the interior rim.
    • A smooth, continuous outer surface on the main cylindrical body.
    • A raised, narrow ring feature separating the upper body from the base module.
    • A base module with three slim, evenly spaced clamping elements.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Non-Infringing Cup Holder Expander," sold by Plaintiff under the TYKOR brand (ASIN B0C7SVNF9H). (Compl. ¶4). The complaint distinguishes between an "Earlier Version" and a "Later Version" of this product. (Compl. ¶47).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a car cup holder expander sold on Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶4). The complaint focuses its non-infringement analysis on visual differences between its products and the patented design, alleging the "Later Version" features three rounded internal protrusions (as opposed to four trapezoidal ones), a smooth upper profile without a distinct horizontal contour line, wide vertical grooves on its outer surface, a ribbed lower ring, thicker base clamps, and a deeper front cutout. (Compl. ¶¶49(a)-(f)). The complaint asserts that the delisting of the product from Amazon following Defendant's infringement complaint caused Plaintiff "significant commercial harm, including loss of sales, reputational damage, and disruption." (Compl. ¶6). The complaint includes a detailed visual breakdown comparing the features of the "Later Version" of the accused product against the figures of the ’229 Patent. (Compl. p. 20). This image, labeled "Later Version of the Non-Infringing Cup Holder Expander" versus "The ’299 Patent - Front view," uses numbered callouts to highlight six distinct points of alleged visual difference. (Compl. p. 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its allegations are framed to demonstrate that an "ordinary observer" would not find the accused products substantially the same as the patented design, particularly in view of the alleged prior art. The following table summarizes the key visual differences the complaint alleges exist between its "Later Version" product and the patented design.

'229 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

Claimed Design Feature ('229 Patent) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (Later Version) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Four trapezoidal rim-mounted protrusions The product has three rounded, semicircular protrusions on the rim. ¶49(a) Fig. 6
A prominent horizontal contour line near the top rim creating a segmented appearance The product lacks this line and presents a smooth, uninterrupted upper profile. ¶49(b) Fig. 2
A smooth and continuous cylindrical surface The product's outer surface includes multiple wide and deep vertical grooves. ¶49(c) Fig. 2
A raised, narrow ring with a smooth surface at the lower portion of the cup body The product features a series of ribbed surface elements without a protruding flange. ¶49(d) Fig. 2
Slim clamping modules with minimal surface detail The product's clamping modules are thicker, more mechanical in appearance, and feature unevenly spaced vertical grooves. ¶49(e) Fig. 2
A shallower, more refined front cutout that terminates well above the base The product's front cutout extends nearly the full height of the cup body, exposing inner recesses. ¶49(f) Fig. 2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central issue is the scope of the ’229 Patent's design protection in light of the alleged prior art. The complaint argues the field is "crowded," which, if established, would narrow the patent's scope to its precise ornamental features and make the noted differences more significant to an ordinary observer. (Compl. ¶46).
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be whether the combination of differences alleged by the Plaintiff—particularly the number and shape of internal protrusions, the surface texturing, the overall profile, and the cutout depth—creates an overall visual impression that is "plainly dissimilar" to the patented design. (Compl. ¶50).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole rather than the construction of individual text-based terms. The critical inquiry is how broadly the design shown in the patent figures should be interpreted in light of the prior art.

  • The "Term": The overall ornamental design for a "vehicle cup holder expander" as shown in the solid lines of the '229 Patent figures.
  • Context and Importance: The scope of protection afforded to the ’229 Patent is the core of the non-infringement dispute. Plaintiff's case relies on establishing that the patent's scope is narrow and limited to the exact visual details shown, which would magnify the importance of the differences in its accused product. The determination of this scope will be heavily influenced by the court's view of the prior art identified in the complaint.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue that the overall visual impression is defined by the general configuration—a cylindrical cup with a side cutout and an adjustable base—and that features like surface texture or the precise number of internal grips are minor variations that do not change the fundamental aesthetic that an ordinary observer would perceive.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues that multiple similar designs were publicly available before the patent's filing date. (Compl. ¶¶20-23, 31). Plaintiff will likely argue that this "crowded" field of art requires the ’229 Patent’s scope to be narrowly construed to cover only the specific combination of features depicted, such as the four trapezoidal protrusions, the smooth outer surface, and the specific horizontal contour line. (Compl. ¶46).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Unenforceability and Bad Faith Enforcement: The complaint contains allegations that go beyond simple non-infringement and invalidity.
    • Inequitable Conduct: Plaintiff alleges the ’229 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The specific basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendant, or a closely affiliated entity, sold a product "visually identical to the design claimed" (the "Seven Sparta" branded product, ASIN B07PMHPJJF) more than a year before the patent's filing date, and then knowingly failed to disclose this material prior art to the USPTO during prosecution with an intent to deceive the examiner. (Compl. ¶¶41, 42).
    • Bad Faith Assertion: The complaint alleges that Defendant engaged in "bad faith assertions of patent infringement" in violation of Washington state law by filing its complaint with Amazon. (Compl. ¶59). The alleged bad faith stems from Defendant's purported knowledge that the ’229 Patent was invalid over the prior art and/or not infringed by Plaintiff’s product. (Compl. ¶56).

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the court’s findings on three central questions:

  1. Validity Over Prior Art: A primary issue is the validity of the '229 design patent. Can Plaintiff prove by clear and convincing evidence that the prior art products identified in the complaint—particularly the "Seven Sparta" branded product allegedly sold by an entity with the same name as Defendant—either anticipate the claimed design or trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102?

  2. Design Scope and Infringement: A key question of visual comparison will be dispositive for the non-infringement claim. Assuming the patent is valid, are the documented differences between the accused TYKOR product and the patented design significant enough to create a plainly dissimilar overall visual impression in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art?

  3. Intent and Bad Faith: A crucial evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent. Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant knew its patent was invalid or not infringed when filing the Amazon complaint (to support the state law claims) and, separately, that Defendant intentionally withheld material prior art from the USPTO with deceptive intent (to prove inequitable conduct)?