DCT
2:25-cv-02740
Shenzhen Xinxiangming Optoelectronics Co Ltd v. Flip It Cap LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xinxiangming Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. d/b/a ARKNOAH-US (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Flip It Cap LLC (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02740, W.D. Wash., 12/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant purposefully directed patent enforcement activities into the district by initiating an Amazon patent-enforcement proceeding, which foreseeably caused actions by Amazon personnel located in Seattle.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "pack bottle emptying cap" does not infringe Defendant’s design patent for a "Fitment Adaptor."
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of fitment adaptors, which are components used to facilitate the emptying of viscous liquids from bottles.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant filing a patent-infringement report with Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listing. This enforcement action created the "actual case or controversy" Plaintiff asserts is necessary for a declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-02-17 | U.S. Design Patent No. D734,668 Priority / Filing Date |
| 2015-07-21 | U.S. Design Patent No. D734,668 Issued |
| 2025-11-25 | Amazon removes Plaintiff's product listing based on Defendant's report |
| 2025-12-30 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D734,668 S - *"Fitment Adaptor"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D734,668 S, titled “Fitment Adaptor,” issued on July 21, 2015 (the “D’668 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not contain a background section describing a technical problem; they protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture (D’668 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The D’668 Patent claims a specific ornamental design for a "fitment adaptor" (D’668 Patent, Claim). The design, as depicted in the patent’s figures, consists of a ring-like object featuring a series of external notches or ribs around its circumference, multiple concentric rings on its top surface, and a threaded profile on its side view (D’668 Patent, FIG. 1, 3, 5). The claim covers the visual appearance of the article, not its functional characteristics (D’668 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the design's technical or market importance.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a fitment adaptor, as shown." (D’668 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- A perspective view showing a notched outer ring and a smooth, multi-tiered interior surface (D’668 Patent, FIG. 1).
- A bottom view with a notched perimeter and a smooth central ring (D’668 Patent, FIG. 2).
- A side profile showing multiple external threads (D’668 Patent, FIG. 3, 4).
- A top view showing a notched perimeter and two smooth concentric inner rings (D’668 Patent, FIG. 5).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff’s "pack bottle emptying cap" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product as a "fitment adaptor" sold on Amazon.com and other e-commerce channels (Compl. ¶8, ¶14). The dispute arose when Defendant’s enforcement actions caused Amazon to remove the Plaintiff’s product listing (ASIN B0DPXG12TW), which Plaintiff identifies as its primary U.S. sales channel (Compl. ¶9, ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The plaintiff, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, argues that its Accused Product creates a different overall visual impression from the patented design (Compl. ¶21). The complaint references an exhibit allegedly containing a visual of the Accused Product to support its non-infringement position (Compl. ¶18, referencing Ex. C).
D’668 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Feature of the Patented Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Plaintiff's Alleged Differentiating Feature) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall perimeter presentation and proportions, which are clean, continuously annular, and predominantly circular. | The Accused Product's overall perimeter and proportions differ from the patented design. | ¶21 | D’668 Patent, FIG. 1, 5 |
| The top view, showing a notched perimeter and smooth concentric inner rings. | The Accused Product’s top view reflects a "more structurally articulated interior appearance." | ¶21 | D’668 Patent, FIG. 5 |
| The bottom view, showing a smooth surface within the outer ring. | The Accused Product’s bottom view includes "conspicuous molded surface markings." | ¶21 | D’668 Patent, FIG. 2 |
| The side profile, showing a streamlined, uniform ring-like profile with threads. | The Accused Product’s side profile appears "thicker and more heavily articulated than the streamlined, uniform ring-like profile." | ¶21 | D’668 Patent, FIG. 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question is whether the differences articulated by the plaintiff are sufficient to create a different "overall visual impression" under the ordinary observer test for design patent infringement. The court will need to determine if an ordinary observer, familiar with other fitment adaptor designs, would be deceived into thinking the Accused Product is the same as the patented design.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the alleged differences—such as a "structurally articulated interior" and "conspicuous molded surface markings"—are minor variations or fundamental departures from the patented design's aesthetic (Compl. ¶21).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is rare. The focus is on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, interpreted through the patent's figures.
- The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the interpretation of the overall visual appearance claimed in the patent's drawings. The dispute will center on which visual features dominate the overall impression and whether the Accused Product's design is "substantially the same" (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). Practitioners may focus on identifying which aspects of the design are ornamental versus purely functional, although the complaint does not raise functionality arguments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might contend that the overall impression is defined by the general shape: a circular, threaded, notched adaptor. Minor differences in interior structure or surface texture would be presented as insufficient to alter this general impression.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for narrower scope, as the plaintiff does here, will emphasize that the design is defined by its clean, streamlined, and unadorned surfaces (Compl. ¶21). They may argue that features like the "structurally articulated interior" and "molded surface markings" on the Accused Product are significant departures from the specific aesthetic claimed in the patent's figures (Compl. ¶21; D'668 Patent, FIG. 2, 5).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Not applicable, as this is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Not applicable. However, the plaintiff seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 285, as well as damages for Defendant's "improper acts" in enforcing the patent (Compl. p. 6).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the answers to two key questions:
- Materiality of Differences: Are the alleged differences between the Accused Product and the patented design—specifically the interior articulation, surface markings, and thicker profile—sufficiently substantial to create a different overall visual impression in the mind of an ordinary observer, or are they minor details that do not alter the fundamental design identity?
- Scope of the Patented Design: How will the court define the scope of the D’668 Patent's claimed design? Will the analysis focus on the high-level similarities of a notched, threaded ring, or will it give significant weight to the specific, clean, and streamlined aesthetic depicted in the patent's drawings?