GennComm LLC v. Miniso Group Holdings Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GennComm, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Miniso Depot Ca, Inc. (California); USA Miniso Depot Inc. (Delaware); Miniso Group Holdings Ltd (Cayman Islands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Progress LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-03088, C.D. Cal., 09/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Miniso Depot CA, Inc. because it is incorporated in California and resides in the district; as to USA MINISO Depot Inc. based on alleged acts of infringement and maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district; and as to MINISO Group Holding Limited because it is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s memory foam plush toys infringe three patents related to the construction of plush toys using a compressible foam core constrained by a flexible outer covering.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to "slow-rise" or "squishy" plush toys, which use a compressible foam inner to create a unique tactile experience that became a significant trend in the toy industry.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant on April 20, 2023, identifying the patents-in-suit. The original complaint in this action was filed on March 23, 2026. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has entered into agreements with numerous other companies relating to its patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-05-19	Earliest Priority Date for '061', '475', and '814' Patents
2019-10-01	'061 Patent Issued
2020-03-24	'475 Patent Issued
2022-04-26	'814 Patent Issued
2023-04-20	Plaintiff’s counsel sends letter to Miniso identifying asserted patents
2026-03-16	Plaintiff’s CEO sends written notice of infringement to Miniso
2026-03-23	Original Complaint Filed
2026-09-28	Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,596,475 - "Plush Stuffed with Molded or Sculpted Foam"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,596,475, "Plush Stuffed with Molded or Sculpted Foam," issued on March 24, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional plush toys, typically filled with polyester fiberfill or wool, are not easily compressed for shipping or storage without being permanently damaged, nor do they expand back to their original shape effectively ʼ475 Patent, col. 1:36-44
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a plush toy made with a compressible viscoelastic foam inner (i.e., memory foam) that is formed into a character shape ʼ475 Patent, col. 2:58-61 This foam core is inserted into a flexible outer covering that is dimensionally "smaller than the natural size of the foam inner" ʼ475 Patent, col. 5:61-62 This size mismatch constrains the foam, creating a pre-compressed state that allows the toy to be squeezed and then slowly expand back to its resting shape ʼ475 Patent, col. 2:14-19
• Technical Importance: This construction provided a method to create plush toys with the "slow-rise" or "squishy" tactile feel that was a popular trend in the toy market Compl. ¶17

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts exemplary Claim 2, which depends from independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶36
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A foam inner formed into a first shape, comprising a compressible foam material.
  • A flexible outer covering with a second shape aligned with the foam inner's shape, which entirely surrounds the foam inner and has an unconstrained size smaller than the foam inner's natural size.
  • The resulting plush toy has a "first uncompressed form" where the foam is at least partially compressed and constrained by the outer covering.
  • The toy has a "plurality of compressed forms" smaller than its uncompressed form.
  • Upon release from a compressed form, the toy expands back to its uncompressed form.
• Dependent Claim 2 adds the limitation that "the foam inner is compressible to at least 33% of the natural size" ʼ475 Patent, claim 2

U.S. Patent No. 10,427,061 - "Plush Stuffed with Molded or Sculpted Foam"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,427,061, "Plush Stuffed with Molded or Sculpted Foam," issued on October 1, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the '475 Patent: traditional plush toys cannot be significantly compressed without damage and do not offer a "slow-rise" tactile experience ʼ061 Patent, col. 1:26-34
• The Patented Solution: The ʼ061 Patent describes a similar solution involving a compressible foam inner placed within a smaller, flexible outer covering ʼ061 Patent, abstract A distinguishing feature recited in the asserted claim is that the foam inner is formed into a character shape "having at least one appendage" ʼ061 Patent, col. 5:41-42 The specification provides examples of such appendages, including those with different types of fill material or no fill at all, to create varied tactile effects ʼ061 Patent, col. 4:23-35
• Technical Importance: This patent specifically claims the application of the slow-rise foam technology to character-shaped toys with features like arms, legs, or ears, which are common in the plush toy market Compl. ¶55

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶51
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A foam inner formed into a character shape "having at least one appendage" and comprising a compressible foam material.
  • A flexible outer covering shaped to align with and entirely surround the foam inner, having an unconstrained size smaller than the natural size of the foam inner.
  • The resulting plush toy has a "first uncompressed form" where the foam is constrained by the outer covering and does not achieve its natural size.
  • The toy has a "second, compressed form" smaller than the uncompressed form.
  • Upon release from compression, the toy expands back to its uncompressed form.

U.S. Patent No. 11,311,814 - "Plush Stuffed with Molded or Sculpted Foam"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,311,814, "Plush Stuffed with Molded or Sculpted Foam," issued on April 26, 2022.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family, describes a plush toy with a compressible viscoelastic foam inner. The invention focuses on the "shape defining textile fabric outer covering" that entirely surrounds the foam, compressing and constraining it "such that the inner foam does not achieve a natural, uncompressed size or shape" ʼ814 Patent, col. 5:63-67
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts exemplary Claim 1 Compl. ¶65
• Accused Features: The accused features are the Miniso Products' "compressible viscoelastic ('slow-rise' or 'memory') foam material" and the "shape defining textile fabric outer covering" that is alleged to compress and constrain the foam inner Compl. ¶¶68-70

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "The Miniso plush toys with foam inner" sold in connection with licensed brands such as Sanrio, "We Bare Bears," and Marvel Compl. ¶27 Collectively, these are referred to as the "Miniso Products" Compl. ¶27

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Miniso Products as "plush toys comprising a slow-rise, viscoelastic ('memory') foam inner formed into a character shape and covered by a textile fabric outer covering" Compl. ¶27 Defendants are alleged to market these products using descriptive terms like "memory foam," "slow rebound," and "super squishy" Compl. ¶¶6-7 The complaint characterizes this product line as "highly lucrative" and alleges that Defendants have "heavily saturated the United States market" with them through retail and e-commerce channels Compl. ¶¶2-5

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'475 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, with Claim 2)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A plush toy comprising: a foam inner formed into a first shape comprising a compressible foam material having an outer surface, the foam inner having a natural size when unconstrained;	The Miniso Products are alleged to be plush toys with a foam inner that is formed into a character shape, is compressible, and has a natural size when unconstrained.	¶39; ¶40; ¶41	col. 3:37-40
a flexible outer covering having a second shape aligned with the first shape of the foam inner and entirely surrounding the foam inner and having an unconstrained size smaller than the natural size of the foam inner...	The accused products are alleged to have a flexible outer covering that is shaped to and aligned with the foam inner, entirely surrounds it, and has an unconstrained size smaller than the foam's natural size.	¶42	col. 3:50-54
the plush toy having a first uncompressed form with a natural size and shape wherein the inner foam is at least partially compressed and constrained by the outer covering and does not achieve its natural size; and a plurality of compressed forms smaller than the unconstrained forms;	The accused products allegedly have an uncompressed form where the foam inner is partially compressed by the outer covering, and have multiple compressed forms smaller than this.	¶44	col. 2:62-65
wherein when the plush toy is compressed to a one of the compressed forms, upon release the foam inner expands back toward its unconstrained size and the plush toy thereby expands to the uncompressed form with the natural size and shape of the plush toy.	When the accused products are compressed and released, the foam inner allegedly expands, causing the toy to expand back to its uncompressed form.	¶45	col. 2:14-19
wherein the foam inner is compressible to at least 33% of the natural size. [from Claim 2]	The foam inner of the accused products can allegedly be compressed to at least 33% of its natural size.	¶46	col. 2:12-14

'061 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A plush toy comprising: a foam inner formed into a character shape having at least one appendage and comprising a compressible foam material...the foam inner having a natural size when unconstrained;	The accused products are alleged to have a foam inner formed into a character shape with at least one appendage (e.g., ear, arm, leg), made of compressible foam that has a natural size when unconstrained.	¶54; ¶55; ¶56	col. 5:41-45
a flexible outer covering shaped to and aligned with the character shape of the foam inner and entirely surrounding the foam inner and having an unconstrained size smaller than the natural size of the foam inner...	The accused products allegedly have a flexible outer covering that is shaped to and aligned with the foam inner, entirely surrounds it, and is smaller than the foam's natural size.	¶57	col. 5:46-51
the plush toy having a first uncompressed form... wherein the inner foam is constrained by the outer covering and does not achieve its natural size; and a second, compressed form smaller than the unconstrained form;	The accused products allegedly have an uncompressed form where the foam is constrained by the outer covering and a compressed form smaller than that.	¶59	col. 5:53-58
wherein when the plush toy is compressed... upon release the plush toy expands to the uncompressed form with the natural size and shape of the plush toy.	When the accused products are compressed and released, they allegedly expand back to their uncompressed form and shape.	¶60	col. 5:59-63

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be the construction of the phrase "unconstrained size smaller than the natural size of the foam inner." The claims do not quantify how much "smaller" the covering must be. This raises the question of whether any dimensional difference meets the limitation, or if a functionally significant difference that causes the specific constraining effect is required.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory (e.g., "The Miniso Products meet each of the limitations..."). A key question for the court will be what technical evidence the plaintiff presents to substantiate these claims. This may involve, for example, product teardowns and measurements to prove the relative sizes of the foam inner and outer covering, the foam's material properties, and its compressibility to the "at least 33%" threshold required by Claim 2 of the '475 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "unconstrained size smaller than the natural size of the foam inner" (from Claim 1 of '475 and '061 Patents)

• Context and Importance: This relational limitation is the technological core of the asserted patents, as it is the mechanism that creates the pre-compressed, "slow-rise" state. The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on whether the accused products are found to have this specific dimensional relationship between their internal foam and outer covering. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will define the boundary between infringement and non-infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the '061 Patent states the outer covering is "sized in at least one dimension to be smaller than the natural size of the foam inner 20" ('061 Patent, col. 3:40-42). A party could argue this supports a construction where the "smaller" requirement is met if even a single dimension of the covering is smaller, rather than its overall volume.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require the toy to have an "uncompressed form" where the foam "is at least partially compressed and constrained" ('475 Patent, col. 6:1-3). A party could argue that the term "smaller" must be construed in a way that is sufficient to actually cause this claimed functional result, suggesting a de minimis size difference would not suffice.

• The Term: "appendage" (from Claim 1 of '061 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is a key differentiator for the '061 Patent. Its definition will determine the scope of "character shapes" covered by the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint itself provides a broad list of examples, including "an ear, arm, leg, or tail" Compl. ¶55 The specification refers generally to "one or more appendages 22" ('061 Patent, col. 4:23), which may support an interpretation that includes any feature protruding from the main body of the character.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses how appendages may contain different fill materials or no fill at all to achieve different tactile results ('061 Patent, col. 4:23-35). A party might argue that an "appendage" must therefore be a distinct, articulated feature capable of having such different properties, rather than a minor, integrated part of the overall molded shape.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal counts for infringement against the named Defendants are brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for direct infringement Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶51 Compl. ¶65 The complaint does not contain specific allegations of fact to support claims of induced or contributory infringement against the named Miniso defendants.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It pleads pre-suit knowledge based on a letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on April 20, 2023, which allegedly identified the patents-in-suit and the accused products Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶32 Willfulness is further alleged based on continued infringement after the filing of the original complaint in the action on March 23, 2026 Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶34

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the relational term "unconstrained size smaller than the natural size of the foam inner"? The outcome of the case may depend on whether this requires a functionally significant size difference that demonstrably causes the foam to be "partially compressed and constrained," or if any measurable difference is sufficient to meet the claim language.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: as the complaint's infringement contentions are largely conclusory, the case will turn on the factual evidence and expert testimony Plaintiff introduces to prove the internal construction of the accused products. Demonstrating, through teardowns and testing, the specific size mismatch and foam compressibility (particularly the 33% threshold of the '475 Patent) will be critical.
• An antecedent question for the litigation will be one of corporate liability: will the Plaintiff succeed in establishing jurisdiction over the foreign parent company, MINISO Group Holding Limited, based on its theories of alter-ego and agency? The complaint's detailed allegations on this point Compl. ¶¶14-19 suggest this will be a significant and potentially dispositive preliminary battle.