DCT
2:25-cv-01714
WM Intl LLC v. Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WM International LLC (Virginia)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01714, W.D. Wash., 09/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant directed its patent enforcement activities at Amazon.com, Inc. in Seattle, which constitutes a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its Handheld Portable Turbo Fan does not infringe Defendant’s design patent covering a graphical user interface for such a fan.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for handheld consumer electronics, a field where visual appearance is a key market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by an infringement complaint Defendant filed with Amazon.com, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's accused product listings from the e-commerce platform.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-04-04 | ’933 Patent Application Filing Date (Earliest Priority) |
| 2025-03-25 | ’933 Patent Issued |
| 2025-08-29 | Defendant submits infringement report to Amazon against Plaintiff |
| 2025-09-06 | Plaintiff files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,067,933 S1 - "Portable Fan Display Screen Displaying Graphical User Interface"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,067,933 S1, "Portable Fan Display Screen Displaying Graphical User Interface," issued March 25, 2025 (’933 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a technical problem, as is typical for design patents. The subject matter implicitly addresses the need for a distinct and informative ornamental design for a graphical user interface on a portable fan to convey information like power level and battery status to the user.
- The Patented Solution: The ’933 Patent claims the ornamental appearance of a GUI for a portable fan, presenting three distinct embodiments. The design elements shown in solid lines constitute the claimed design, while the fan body shown in broken lines provides environmental context and is not part of the claim (’933 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The claimed embodiments show various combinations of two-digit numerals, text labels ("AIR VOLUME," "POWER"), and icons (a wind symbol and a battery symbol) arranged in different display shapes and locations on the fan (’933 Patent, FIGS. 1-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The claim of the ’933 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a portable fan display screen displaying graphical user interface, as shown and described" (’933 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design, as depicted across its three main embodiments, include:
- Embodiment 1 (FIGS. 1-9): A circular display on the fan head showing two-digit numerals, a wind icon, a battery icon, and the text "AIR VOLUME" and "POWER."
- Embodiment 2 (FIGS. 10-18): A rectangular display on the fan handle showing similar two-digit numerals and icons.
- Embodiment 3 (FIGS. 19-27): An elongated oval display on the fan handle showing similar two-digit numerals and icons.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff’s Handheld Portable Turbo Fan, identified by ASIN B0D97YVVQ2 (Compl. ¶[Intro], p.1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as having a GUI that differs substantially from the patented designs (Compl. ¶20). Its relevant visual features include a circular display located on the fan head, which shows single-digit numerals (from 1 to 5) to indicate power level, accompanied by segmented LED bars to indicate battery status (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges that the product does not use two-digit numerals, outline icons for battery or wind, or the text "AIR VOLUME" or "POWER" as shown in the ’933 Patent (Compl. ¶20).
- Plaintiff asserts that the Amazon marketplace is its primary U.S. sales channel, and the delisting of its product has caused significant commercial harm (Compl. ¶¶7, 13). Plaintiff's argument for non-infringement is detailed in a comparison image provided as Exhibit C to the complaint (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the key visual differences Plaintiff alleges between its product and the patented design, which form the basis of its non-infringement argument.
D1,067,933 S1 Non-Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Design Feature (from ’933 Patent) | Corresponding Accused Product Feature (as alleged) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A display featuring two-digit numerals (e.g., "50" or "100") to represent air volume. | A display featuring single-digit numerals (1-5) to represent power level. | ¶20 | ’933 Patent, FIGS. 2-3, 8-9 |
| A battery level indicator depicted as an outline of a battery icon. | A battery level indicator depicted as segmented LED bars. | ¶20 | ’933 Patent, FIGS. 2, 11 |
| An air volume indicator depicted as a "wind" icon. | No corresponding wind icon is used. | ¶20 | ’933 Patent, FIGS. 1, 10, 19 |
| The presence of text labels, specifically "AIR VOLUME" and "POWER." | No text labels are present on the display. | ¶20 | ’933 Patent, FIGS. 1, 10, 19 |
| Embodiments showing the display located on the handle of the fan (in rectangular or oval shapes). | The display is circular and located on the fan head, not the handle. | ¶20, 21 | ’933 Patent, FIGS. 10-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, would believe the accused design is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’933 Patent. Plaintiff’s argument hinges on the assertion that the cumulative differences create a "plainly distinct" overall visual impression (Compl. ¶18).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the differences alleged by Plaintiff—single-digit vs. two-digit numerals, segmented bars vs. icons, and the absence of text—are minor variations or fundamental departures from the patented design's overall aesthetic. The analysis will compare the visual weight and impression of these distinct elements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of textual terms is generally not performed. The analysis instead focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.
- The Scope: The scope of "the ornamental design for a portable fan display screen displaying graphical user interface, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of the design's scope is the core of the dispute. The central question is how much variation is permissible before a design is no longer "substantially the same" as the patented design. Practitioners may focus on whether the three distinct embodiments disclosed in the patent broaden the overall conceptual scope of the design or, conversely, limit protection to designs that are very close to one of the specific embodiments shown.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims three different embodiments (circular display on head, rectangular on handle, oval on handle). A party could argue this shows an intent to claim the general concept of a digital display with numerals and icons on a portable fan, regardless of the precise shape or location.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that each specific combination of elements (e.g., the two-digit numerals, the specific wind/battery icons, the text labels) is essential to the claimed ornamental design. The description notes that "The broken line showing of the portable fan display screen... forms no part of the claimed design," which explicitly limits the claim to the GUI elements shown in solid lines, not the fan itself (’933 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. Instead, as the plaintiff, WM International makes the following claims against the defendant, Shenzhen Jisu:
- Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew of Plaintiff's contractual relationship with Amazon and intentionally interfered with it by "knowingly and intentionally asserting materially false allegations of patent infringement" for the purpose of removing a competitor (Compl. ¶¶25-28).
- Unfair Competition (Washington Consumer Protection Act): Plaintiff alleges Defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by filing "baseless patent infringement complaints with Amazon," which limited consumer choice and injured Plaintiff's business in Washington (Compl. ¶¶35, 38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of overall visual impression: Will an ordinary observer, viewing the accused product's GUI with its single-digit numerals and segmented battery bars, be deceived into thinking it is the same as any of the patented embodiments, which consistently feature two-digit numerals, specific icons, and text?
- A key legal and factual question will be one of substantial similarity: Do the multiple differences alleged by the Plaintiff, when viewed in combination, create an overall appearance that is "plainly distinct" from the patented design, or are they merely minor modifications that do not change the fundamental aesthetic claimed in the ’933 Patent?
- A secondary issue may arise from Plaintiff's tort claims: Was Defendant's infringement complaint to Amazon, which triggered this lawsuit, a legitimate act of patent enforcement or an improper and "baseless" act of unfair competition, as Plaintiff alleges? The outcome of the non-infringement claim will likely be highly influential on this question.