DCT

2:26-cv-08694

Hunan Weiyang Technology Co Ltd v. Dbest Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-08694, C.D. Cal., 08/06/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the district and has directed business and enforcement activities there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its redesigned pet carriers do not infringe Defendant's patent on portable, wheeled pet carriers, and that the patent is invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns portable pet carriers designed for travel, which combine a soft-sided carrier with a wheeled platform or dolly to improve mobility.
  • Key Procedural History: This lawsuit follows Defendant's complaints to Amazon.com alleging that Plaintiff's products infringe the patent-in-suit. These complaints resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff's products, including a redesigned version that Plaintiff asserts was specifically developed to avoid infringement and for which Plaintiff has an allowed U.S. patent application.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-10-20 '766 Patent Priority Date
2016-07-19 '766 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-19 Defendant submits first infringement complaint to Amazon.com
2026-03-16 Plaintiff files patent application for its redesigned products
2026-05-26 USPTO determines Plaintiff's patent application is allowable
2026-06-26 Defendant submits second infringement complaint to Amazon.com against redesigned products
2026-08-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,392,766 - "Portable Pet Carrier to Transport a Pet From One Location to Another and Retain the Pet in the Carrier While Traveling"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,392,766, "Portable Pet Carrier to Transport a Pet From One Location to Another and Retain the Pet in the Carrier While Traveling," issued July 19, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for a small, easily transportable pet carrier that solves storage and convenience issues associated with prior art carriers, particularly for air travel US 9,392,766 B1, col. 1:24-44
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pet carrier system combining a soft carrier with a wheeled, flat platform (a "dolly") US9392766B1, abstract A key feature is a telescoping handle connected to the platform via a rotation mechanism, which allows the platform and attached carrier to be pulled while remaining horizontal, which is intended to enhance the pet's comfort during transport US 9,392,766 B1, col. 2:1-9 The entire assembly is also designed to be foldable into a flat configuration for convenient storage US 9,392,766 B1, col. 2:8-17
  • Technical Importance: The invention purports to offer a more convenient and comfortable method for transporting small pets by integrating the stability of a wheeled dolly with the portability of a soft carrier.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the '766 Patent, specifically pleading that its products do not meet all elements of independent claims 1, 2, and 10 Compl. ¶25
  • The essential elements of representative independent Claim 1 include:
    • A pet transport carrier combination with a flat base platform having four wheels, including two "heavy duty luggage wheels" that "rotate in a straight direction" and two "rotating wheels."
    • A handle on telescoping sections connected to the platform by a "rotation mechanism" enabling the handle to be rotated to a 45-degree angle.
    • A pet transport carrier with a strap (with hook/loop strips) that is "rotated around the bottom of the flat base platform and fastened together under the flat base platform to removably retain the pet transport carrier."
    • The carrier is "foldable to be flat against the flat base platform" and secured by the strap such that the assembly is "very flat and folds to less than four inches in width when in the unused condition."
  • The complaint pleads non-infringement of "any of the claims" of the '766 Patent Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶27

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The products at issue are a "wide array of pet carriers" manufactured by Plaintiff, referred to in the complaint as the "Non-infringing Products" Compl. ¶7 Compl. ¶10 These include specific redesigned products identified by a list of Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) Compl. ¶¶13-17

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the products as pet carriers that were "independently redesigned" to "differ materially" from products previously accused of infringement Compl. ¶¶2-3 Compl. ¶15 Plaintiff alleges these redesigned products were developed specifically to design around the claims of the '766 Patent Compl. ¶18 The dispute arises from Defendant's efforts to have these products removed from the Amazon.com marketplace, where Plaintiff and Defendant are alleged to be direct competitors Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶17

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes Plaintiff's allegations regarding why its products do not meet specific limitations of the asserted patent claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'766 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
the pet transport carrier contains a strap having a pair of hook and/or loop strips on opposite sides of the strap so that the strap is rotated around the bottom of the flat base platform and fastened together under the flat base platform to removably retain the pet transport carrier onto the flat base platform Plaintiff alleges its "Non-infringing Products" do not meet this element. ¶25 col. 6:8-17
the pet transport carrier is foldable to be flat against the flat base platform with the strap and its hook and loop fasteners wrapped around the folded pet transport carrier and flat base platform and fastened with the strap's mating hook and loop fasteners so that the entire assembly is very flat and folds to less than four inches in width when in the unused condition to facilitate convenient storage Plaintiff alleges its "Non-infringing Products" do not meet this element. ¶25 col. 6:8-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The primary dispute appears to be factual: do the Plaintiff's "Non-infringing Products" physically possess the strap mechanism and folding configuration described in the claims? The case will turn on an examination of the accused products' actual construction and operation.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute raises questions about the scope of the claim terms. For example, the court may need to determine what structural features are required for a strap to be considered "rotated around the bottom of the flat base platform" to "removably retain" the carrier, as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint's invalidity contentions identify several terms that may be central to claim construction and the overall dispute Compl. ¶37

  • The Term: "heavy duty"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the rear wheels in claim 1. Plaintiff alleges it is a "relative term of degree without an objective boundary," raising an indefiniteness issue Compl. ¶37 Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a common component (a wheel) falls within the claim scope and whether the claim itself is definite enough to be enforceable.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition or quantitative metric for "heavy duty," which may support an argument that it is merely a subjective descriptor.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to the components as "heavy duty luggage wheels" US 9,392,766 B1, col. 4:32-33 A party could argue this phrase anchors the term to an understood standard within the luggage industry, providing an objective meaning to a person of ordinary skill in that art.

  • The Term: "very flat" and "less than four inches in width"

    • Context and Importance: These terms in claim 1 define the carrier's stored configuration. Plaintiff argues "very flat" is subjective and that "less than four inches in width" is unclear as to the dimension being measured Compl. ¶37 Compl. p. 10, ¶38 The enforceability of the folding limitation depends on whether these terms provide a clear and objective standard.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Standing alone, "very flat" is a subjective term of degree.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent links the terms together, stating the assembly becomes "very flat and folds to less than four inches in width" US 9,392,766 B1, col. 6:13-15 A party may argue that the "four inches" measurement provides the objective standard for what the patent considers "very flat," thereby resolving the alleged indefiniteness.

  • The Term: "rotation mechanism"

    • Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 recites the component connecting the handle to the platform. Plaintiff alleges it is "purely functional and fails to recite sufficient structure," suggesting an indefiniteness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Compl. ¶37 The validity of this limitation may depend on whether the specification discloses corresponding structure.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader (Functional) Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional: "a rotation mechanism to enable the telescoping handle to be rotated..." US 9,392,766 B1, col. 8:36-39
      • Evidence for a Narrower (Structural) Interpretation: The specification describes a corresponding structure: "The second section 58 has a rotatable mechanism 64 which enables the telescoping handle 50 to be rotated..." US 9,392,766 B1, col. 4:63-65 Figure 3 provides a detailed perspective view of this "rotation mechanism 64" US 9,392,766 B1, FIG. 3 A party will likely argue that this disclosure provides the necessary structural anchor for the claim term.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed "either directly or indirectly" and does not infringe "contributorily, or by inducement" Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶27 The complaint does not, however, allege specific facts related to indirect infringement beyond a general denial of liability.
  • Willful Infringement: As a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, the complaint does not allege willfulness against the Defendant. Instead, it alleges that the Defendant (patentee) has acted in "bad faith" by filing "objectively baseless" infringement complaints with Amazon, particularly after Plaintiff redesigned its products Compl. ¶¶18-19 These allegations may form the basis for Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 Compl. p. 10, prayer 5

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

  • Claim Validity and Definiteness: A threshold issue for the court will be one of claim validity: are terms such as "heavy duty," "very flat," and "rotation mechanism" indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as Plaintiff alleges? The resolution will depend on whether the patent's specification provides sufficient objective guidance and structural support to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the invention's scope.
  • Factual Product Comparison: Assuming the claims survive the validity challenge, a key evidentiary question will be one of factual comparison: do Plaintiff's redesigned pet carriers, in their actual physical embodiment, incorporate the specific strap-based retention system and sub-four-inch folded configuration required by the patent's independent claims?
  • Obviousness over Prior Art: The case also presents a significant question of obviousness: would a person of ordinary skill in the art, reviewing the numerous prior art references cited by Plaintiff, have been motivated to combine their respective features to create the claimed pet carrier combination with a reasonable expectation of success?
Loading Complaint