DCT
2:25-cv-01595
Yiwu Jieya E Commerce Co Ltd v. Xu
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yiwu Jieya E-Commerce Co. Ltd.
- Defendant: Liang Xu and JUDYBRIDAL
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alight Law P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01595, W.D. Wash., 09/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: The provided documents do not specify the basis for venue allegations.
- Core Dispute: The provided documents suggest a patent dispute involving a U.S. patent for which Defendant Liang Xu is the named inventor.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to desktop office supplies, specifically a multi-compartment pen holder with a rotating upper portion to improve user access to stored items.
- Key Procedural History: The provided documents do not detail any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-09-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,274,337 ('337 Patent) |
| 2025-04-15 | U.S. Patent No. 12,274,337 Issues |
| 2025-09-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,274,337 - PEN HOLDER
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies an inconvenience with conventional, one-piece pen holders, noting that their fixed structure makes it difficult for users to "search for, take out, and place the office supplies at different positions in the accommodating chamber" (’337 Patent, col. 1:18-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part pen holder comprising a stationary base and a rotating upper frame containing storage compartments (’337 Patent, col. 1:28-35). A "resistance reducing device," such as a set of ball bearings housed in a bracket between the base and the frame, facilitates smooth rotation, allowing a user to easily turn the holder to access items in different compartments (’337 Patent, col. 4:5-23). The exploded view in Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between the pen holder base (1), the pen holder frame (2), the balls (4), and the bracket (5) that enables this rotation (’337 Patent, Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design aims to provide a more convenient and efficient user experience for organizing and accessing common desktop supplies (’337 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The provided documents do not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A pen holder base and a pen holder frame, where the frame is arranged on and rotates on the base.
- An accommodating chamber within the frame.
- A "resistance reducing device" arranged between the frame and the base, which itself comprises a bracket and balls.
- A "bracket groove" at the top of the base configured to hold the bracket.
- A specific structural relationship wherein the height of the bracket groove’s side wall is less than the diameter of the balls, causing the balls to protrude and support the pen holder frame.
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of whether the right to assert dependent claims has been reserved.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
The complaint was not provided, and therefore the accused instrumentality is not identified. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint was not provided and therefore contains no specific infringement allegations or claim charts for analysis.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As the complaint's specific infringement theory is unavailable, this analysis identifies a term whose construction may be central to the dispute based on the patent's language.
- The Term: "resistance reducing device"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is fundamental to the patent's inventive concept of enabling smooth rotation. The definition of this term will be critical in determining the scope of rotational mechanisms covered by the claim, which may directly impact any infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the element functionally as "a device for reducing friction resistance" (’337 Patent, col. 4:5-6). This language could support an interpretation that covers any mechanism that achieves the function of reducing friction to allow rotation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 structurally limits the "resistance reducing device" by requiring that it "further comprises a bracket (5) and balls (4)" arranged in a specific "bracket groove" (’337 Patent, col. 7:35-45). The detailed description and figures focus exclusively on this ball-and-bracket embodiment, which could be used to argue that the term should be construed as limited to this specific structure or its close equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint was not provided and thus contains no allegations of indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint was not provided and thus contains no allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Because the complaint and its specific allegations were not available for review, the central questions are framed based on the patent itself and the general nature of such disputes.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "resistance reducing device," which is recited functionally but also defined with specific structural limitations in claim 1 (balls, bracket, groove), be construed to cover rotational mechanisms that do not precisely mirror the disclosed ball-bearing embodiment?
- A second key question will relate to structural limitations: The claims recite precise geometric relationships, such as the requirement that the height of the bracket groove's side wall "is less than a diameter of each of the balls." Any infringement analysis will turn on evidentiary proof demonstrating whether an accused product meets these and other specific dimensional and arrangement-based claim elements.