DCT
2:25-cv-02741
Shenzhen Xinchangtu Technology Co Ltd v. Flip It Cap LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xinchangtu Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Flip It Cap LLC (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02741, W.D. Wash., 12/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant directed patent enforcement activities into the district by initiating a proceeding on Amazon.com, which foreseeably led to actions by Amazon personnel located in Seattle and a disruption of Plaintiff's sales in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "pack bottle emptying cap" product does not infringe Defendant's design patent for a "fitment adaptor."
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of consumer product accessories used as adaptors or caps for bottles, likely to facilitate the dispensing of viscous contents.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant's patent infringement report to Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff’s product listings on November 25, 2025. This enforcement action is cited as the basis for the actual controversy required for a declaratory judgment.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-02-17 | D'668 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2015-07-21 | U.S. Design Patent No. D734,668 S Issues |
| 2025-11-25 | Amazon removes Plaintiff's product listings based on Defendant's infringement report |
| 2025-12-30 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D734,668 S - *“Fitment Adaptor”*
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D’668 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a new, original, and ornamental design for a fitment adaptor (D’668 Patent, Claim). The patent’s subject matter is purely aesthetic.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a fitment adaptor as depicted in its figures (D’668 Patent, Claim; Figs. 1-5). The design features a generally ring-like body with a serrated or gear-like pattern on the perimeter of its top surface, multiple horizontal ridges on its side profile, and a series of concentric rings on its bottom surface (D’668 Patent, Figs. 1-5).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a distinct aesthetic for a functional item, which may serve as a source identifier or create market differentiation for bottle accessories (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a fitment adaptor, as shown" (D’668 Patent, Claim).
- The core visual elements defining the claimed design include:
- A circular, ring-shaped body.
- A top view characterized by a serrated outer edge and a smooth, recessed interior surface surrounding a central aperture.
- A side profile defined by three prominent, parallel ridges.
- A bottom view featuring multiple concentric circular rings.
- The specific proportions and interrelation of these features as illustrated in the patent drawings.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Plaintiff’s "pack bottle emptying cap" sold on Amazon.com under the brand NaughtyJoy Direct (Compl. ¶8, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the product as a "bottle emptying cap," suggesting its function is to facilitate dispensing contents from bottles (Compl. ¶8). Plaintiff alleges that Amazon is its primary sales channel in the United States for the Accused Product and that Defendant's enforcement actions have disrupted its sales and business operations (Compl. ¶9, ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff alleges non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments for why its product does not infringe, based on the "ordinary observer" test applicable to design patents (Compl. ¶18, ¶20).
Claim Chart Summary
| Key Visual Feature of Patented Design (D'668 Patent) | Plaintiff's Alleged Non-Infringing Feature in Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The design's "clean, continuously annular, predominantly circular appearance" and overall proportions. | The Accused Product's overall perimeter presentation and proportions are alleged to differ from the patented design. | ¶21 | Figs. 1-5 |
| The top view's appearance with a distinct serrated outer edge and smooth interior. | The Accused Product's top view allegedly "reflects a more structurally articulated interior appearance." | ¶21 | Fig. 5 |
| The bottom view's appearance, which features clean concentric rings. | The Accused Product's bottom view allegedly "includes conspicuous molded surface markings absent from the D'668 design." | ¶21 | Fig. 2 |
| The "streamlined, uniform ring-like profile" depicted in the side view. | The Accused Product's side profile allegedly "appears thicker and more heavily articulated" than the patented design. | ¶21 | Fig. 3 |
Identified Points of Contention
The dispute will center on a visual comparison between the Accused Product and the figures of the D’668 Patent. The complaint provides a purported visual comparison in Exhibit C to support its non-infringement allegations (Compl. ¶18).
- Scope Questions: The central legal question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs for fitment adaptors, would be deceived into believing the Accused Product is the same as, or substantially the same as, the patented design (Compl. ¶20). The analysis will question whether the specific differences alleged by the Plaintiff—such as a "more structurally articulated interior" and "conspicuous molded surface markings"—are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression, or if they are minor details that do not alter the design's core aesthetic.
- Evidentiary Questions: A key factual question will be how the visual evidence, particularly the side-by-side comparison presumably offered in Exhibit C, supports the Plaintiff's descriptive claims of visual difference (Compl. ¶18, ¶21). The court's determination will depend heavily on its own visual assessment of the two designs.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction, in the sense of defining disputed terms, is generally not a central issue in design patent litigation. The claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings (D’668 Patent, Claim). The analysis is not one of textual interpretation but of visual comparison. The scope of the claim is defined by the ornamental features shown in the patent’s figures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement by the Plaintiff. Rather, the Plaintiff seeks a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorney fees and enhanced damages, alleging that these are warranted due to the "willful and exceptional nature of the case" arising from Defendant’s enforcement actions (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C, D). This suggests a focus on alleged improper litigation or pre-litigation conduct by the patent holder.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Under the governing "ordinary observer" test, do the alleged differences in the Accused Product's profile, surface markings, and interior structure create an overall visual impression that is plainly dissimilar from the design claimed in the D'668 Patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be the materiality of the distinctions: Are the specific differences cited by the Plaintiff—such as a "thicker" profile and "molded surface markings"—sufficient to overcome the similarities in the products' general form and function, or will a fact-finder conclude they are minor variations that fail to prevent likely consumer confusion as to the design's origin?
- A procedural question will be whether Defendant's enforcement conduct on the Amazon platform was improper, which could support the Plaintiff's request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, potentially shifting the burden of attorney's fees.