Vevor Technology LLC v. Bac Industries Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vevor Technology, LLC (California) and SHANGHAI SISHUN E-COMMERCE CO., LTD (China)
  • Defendant: Bac Industries, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Cross-Border Counselor, LLP
• Case Identification: 5:26-cv-01279, C.D. Cal., 03/18/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Vevor alleges venue is proper because Defendant BAC's infringement allegations have given rise to Vevor's claims and affected its property within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its manual trailer dolly products do not infringe Defendant's patent and/or that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the mechanical design of manual trailer dollies, devices used to move trailers over short distances without a vehicle.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant BAC filing takedown demands with Amazon.com, asserting the patent-in-suit against Plaintiff Vevor's products and causing their delisting from the online marketplace. Vevor alleges that it suggested resolving the dispute via Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program, but BAC ignored the suggestion.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,845,670 - TRAILER DOLLY

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,845,670, titled "TRAILER DOLLY," issued December 7, 2010 (the "'670 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a simple, non-motorized method to transport small- to medium-sized trailers over short distances ʼ670 Patent, col. 1:41-54 It notes that prior patented devices did not include an effective attachment for securing a standard trailer hitch to a dolly, which would be a "substantial improvement over the prior art" ʼ670 Patent, col. 1:54-59
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a trailer dolly featuring a main body, wheels, and an operator's handle, distinguished by an "adjustable hitch" ʼ670 Patent, abstract This adjustability is achieved via a hitch component with multiple vertical apertures, allowing its height to be changed and secured with a pin to accommodate different trailers ʼ670 Patent, col. 3:1-9 ʼ670 Patent, Fig. 1 The design allows an operator to easily reposition the hitch height to engage a trailer coupling ʼ670 Patent, col. 3:32-40
• Technical Importance: The solution provides a manual transportation device that can be readily adjusted to connect with trailer hitches of varying heights, simplifying the process of moving trailers without a vehicle ʼ670 Patent, col. 1:51-54

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts that every claim of the '670 Patent contains the "adjustable hitch" limitation Compl. ¶12 Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • a main body having a proximal and distal end;
  • a V-shaped support coupled to the distal end of the main body;
  • an adjustable hitch operably coupled to the distal end of the main body; and
  • at least one wheel operably coupled to the distal end of the main body.
• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement as to all claims of the patent Compl. p. 11, prayer (a)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are various models of Vevor's manual trailer dollies, including 600 lb, 1000 lb, 1200 lb, and 1500 lb capacity versions Compl. ¶29 A representative product is depicted in the complaint's Figure 1 Compl. p. 4, Fig. 1

Functionality and Market Context

• The Vevor products are manual dollies used for transporting and positioning trailers Compl. ¶9 The complaint focuses on the design of the products' hitch mechanism. It alleges that Vevor's dollies do not have an "adjustable hitch" in the sense described by the patent. Instead, they feature a "metal column with an offset hole that permits selection from among two potential heights during assembly" Compl. ¶12 This functionality is shown in Figure 2 of the complaint, which pictures the ball hitch assembly detached from the dolly frame Compl. p. 5, Fig. 2
• The complaint alleges that BAC's assertions of infringement to Amazon.com resulted in the suspension of sales for Vevor's products on that platform, which Vevor describes as a primary source of revenue Compl. ¶¶13-14 Compl. ¶30

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the following table summarizes the plaintiff's arguments for why its product does not meet the claim limitations of the patent-in-suit.

• '670 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central dispute appears to be the proper construction of the term "adjustable hitch." A primary question for the court will be whether this term can be interpreted to cover a device whose height is selected once during assembly, or if it is limited to a hitch that can be conveniently and repeatedly repositioned during normal operation, as described in the patent's specification.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding how the Vevor products are assembled and used in practice. The complaint contrasts the patent's depiction of a user pulling a pin to change the height with Vevor's assembly-only selection Compl. ¶¶13-14 The patent specification describes a user pulling a hitch pin from one of several vertical apertures to set the height, implying a tool-less, in-field adjustment capability ʼ670 Patent, col. 3:32-40 The complaint includes Figure 3 from the patent to illustrate this multi-hole, pin-based adjustment mechanism Compl. p. 5, Fig. 3

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "adjustable hitch" / "vertically adjustable hitch"
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be dispositive for the non-infringement analysis. Vevor's entire non-infringement argument rests on the assertion that its two-position, assembly-specific height selection does not meet this limitation Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶15 Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine the outcome of the infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent holder (BAC) could argue that the plain meaning of "adjustable" simply means capable of being changed to more than one position, without limitation as to the timing or ease of the adjustment. The claims themselves do not explicitly state that the adjustment must occur post-assembly or without tools.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The declaratory judgment plaintiff (Vevor) will likely argue that the specification provides a specific definition for "adjustable." The detailed description and figures show a hitch with "several vertical apertures" (38) and a "hitch pin" (32) that is pulled and "reinserted into a vertical opening" to set the desired height ʼ670 Patent, col. 3:6-9 ʼ670 Patent, col. 3:32-40 ʼ670 Patent, Fig. 1 This embodiment suggests that the term "adjustable" should be limited to a mechanism that allows for convenient, repeated height changes during the product's use, not just a one-time selection at assembly.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration that Vevor's products do not "directly or indirectly infringe" the '670 Patent, but it does not describe a specific theory of indirect infringement that BAC has asserted Compl. ¶32
• Willful Infringement: This section is not applicable, as the complaint is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer. However, Vevor does allege that BAC acted in "bad faith" and seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle Vevor to attorneys' fees Compl. ¶23 Compl. p. 11, prayer (d)

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

This case presents two central questions for the court's determination:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "adjustable hitch," as used and described in the '670 Patent, be construed to cover a hitch whose height is selected from two options only during initial product assembly, or is its meaning limited by the specification's embodiment of a multi-position, pin-based mechanism that allows for convenient, in-field adjustments?
• A parallel issue will be one of validity: assuming the claims are construed broadly enough to read on the accused products, do the prior art trailer dollies cited in the complaint, which allegedly feature "adjustable" mechanisms, anticipate the invention or render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the patent's 2008 filing date? Compl. ¶¶18-22