DCT

2:25-cv-01978

Changsha Suda Electronic Commerce LLC v. Guangzhou Yimei Cosmetics Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01978, W.D. Wash., 10/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendants submitted patent infringement complaints through Amazon, which is headquartered in Seattle, and this conduct directly caused the alleged harm within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its hair wax stick products do not infringe Defendant's design patent for a packaging bottle, and further alleges the patent is invalid and has been enforced in bad faith through e-commerce platform complaints.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of a container for a hair wax stick, a common consumer cosmetic product sold extensively on major e-commerce platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to this lawsuit, Defendants submitted design patent infringement complaints to Amazon and TEMU, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listings. The current action challenges the validity of the asserted patent based on alleged prior public sales and seeks relief for what it characterizes as bad-faith, anticompetitive enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-01-01 Alleged public availability of similar TIGI "Bed Head" Wax Stick
2021-05-06 Plaintiff's manufacturer files Chinese Design Patent application for same design
2022-07-20 Earliest alleged photo review of identical product on Amazon
2022-12-29 Plaintiff's accused product (ASIN B0BRC8T39V) first listed on Amazon
2023-05-03 UK Registered Design for same design granted
2023-10-27 '508 Patent Application Filing Date / Priority Date
2025-05-20 '508 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-19 First TEMU infringement complaint filed by Defendants
2025-10-01 Amazon infringement complaint filed by Defendants
2025-10-04 Plaintiff's Amazon listing taken down
2025-10-06 Second TEMU infringement complaint filed by Defendants
2025-10-13 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,075,508 S, titled "Packaging Bottle," issued on May 20, 2025 (’508 Patent).

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,075,508 S - "Packaging Bottle"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '508 Patent does not address a technical problem but instead provides a novel ornamental appearance for an article of manufacture, in this case, a packaging bottle ('508 Patent, Title).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a packaging bottle as depicted in its nine figures ('508 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a generally cylindrical body and a screw-on cap of a slightly larger diameter. Key ornamental features include the cap's flat top, a distinct circumferential indented band below the top edge of the cap, and the overall proportions of the cap and body ('508 Patent, Figs. 1, 9).
  • Technical Importance: The commercial significance of the design is underscored by the parties' dispute over it in the competitive e-commerce market for cosmetic products (Compl. ¶¶16, 81).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is directed to the design as shown in the drawings. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a packaging bottle, as shown and described" ('508 Patent, Claim).
  • The ornamental design is defined by its visual elements, including:
    • A generally cylindrical bottle body.
    • A cap having a diameter slightly larger than the body.
    • The cap featuring a flat top surface.
    • A distinct, narrow, circumferential groove or indented band on the side of the cap, positioned below the top edge.
    • The overall visual appearance and proportions created by these elements as depicted in Figures 1-9.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Plaintiff's "DolaHair Hair Wax Stick" products sold on Amazon and TEMU (Compl. ¶4). Specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) cited include B0BRC8T39V (Compl. ¶4, 29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The products are cosmetic hair wax sticks used for styling and controlling "flyaway" hair (Compl. p. 8). They are sold directly to consumers through major online retail platforms, where they allegedly compete with products sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶10, 16). The complaint alleges that the design of its products was publicly available and sold in the United States well before the filing date of the ’508 Patent (Compl. ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement in response to takedown notices filed by Defendants on e-commerce platforms (Compl. ¶¶2, 5). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the accused product design is substantially the same as the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer. The complaint's primary argument is that if the designs are substantially the same, the ’508 Patent is invalid due to prior public sales of the same design (Compl. ¶31). The complaint provides visual evidence to support its factual allegations, including a side-by-side comparison of its product and the patent drawings. The complaint presents a screenshot from an Amazon listing for the accused DolaHair product alongside figures from the ’508 Patent, inviting a direct visual comparison (Compl. p. 8).

'508 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from '508 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a packaging bottle as shown and described. The overall ornamental design of the Plaintiff's DolaHair Hair Wax Stick container. ¶¶4, 33, p. 8 Figs. 1-9
A generally cylindrical body. The accused product has a cylindrical body containing hair wax. p. 8 Figs. 1, 3, 9
A cap with a diameter slightly larger than the body. The cap on the accused product has a diameter slightly larger than its body. p. 8 Figs. 1, 3, 9
A cap featuring a flat top surface and a distinct circumferential indented band below the top edge. The accused product's cap features a flat top and a visually similar circumferential indented band. p. 8 Figs. 1, 3, 7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central legal question framed by the complaint is conditional: If the claimed design of the ’508 Patent is construed broadly enough to cover Plaintiff's product, is that claim then invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in light of alleged prior sales of identical products? (Compl. ¶¶31, 51, 53).
    • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the products depicted in the complaint's prior art exhibits (e.g., customer review photos from 2022) are in fact "identical" to the patented design as alleged (Compl. ¶¶29, 43). To support its invalidity arguments, the complaint includes a screenshot of a customer review from July 20, 2022, containing a photograph of a product with an allegedly identical design (Compl. p. 8). The court will need to assess whether these earlier products are substantially the same as the claimed design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal construction of specific textual "terms" is rare. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as a whole, interpreted through the eyes of an ordinary observer. The dispute in this case is not expected to center on the definition of a particular word but rather on the holistic comparison of the patented design to the accused product and, critically, to the alleged prior art designs. The scope of the claim will be defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings ('508 Patent, Figs. 1-9).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement by the Plaintiff. Instead, it affirmatively alleges that Defendants engaged in bad-faith enforcement of the ’508 Patent (Compl. ¶¶39, 67). The basis for this allegation is that Defendants submitted infringement complaints to Amazon and TEMU allegedly knowing that the patent was invalid and/or unenforceable due to extensive prior sales of products with the same design (Compl. ¶¶39, 90). The complaint further alleges that the ’508 Patent was procured through fraud on the USPTO because Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose this material prior art during prosecution, forming the basis for claims of inequitable conduct and a Walker Process antitrust violation (Compl. ¶¶48, 76-79).

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

This case appears poised to turn on the following key questions:

  • A central issue will be one of validity: Does the evidence of prior product sales and foreign design registrations, as presented in the complaint, constitute invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, rendering the ’508 Patent invalid?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of identity: Can the Plaintiff prove that the designs of the products sold more than one year before the patent's filing date are substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’508 Patent?
  • Beyond the patent issues, a critical question will be one of intent: Did the Defendants engage in bad-faith enforcement by submitting complaints to e-commerce platforms with knowledge that the ’508 Patent was likely invalid, potentially giving rise to liability under state consumer protection and federal antitrust laws?