9:26-cv-80808
Shenzhen Xiangdangwen Technology Co Ltd v. Clutch Ventures LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xiangdangwen Technology Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Clutch Ventures LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Kemet Law Group, LLC
- Case Identification: 9:26-cv-80808, S.D. Fla., 07/09/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant Clutch Ventures LLC resides there, maintaining its headquarters and principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its portable charger products do not infringe Defendant's design patent, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of ultra-thin, portable battery packs, a product category in the competitive consumer electronics market where form factor is a significant differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The action was initiated by Plaintiff Lisen after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Defendant Clutch. The complaint's central allegations focus on invalidity and unenforceability, asserting that the patentee's own public disclosures and product launches occurred more than one year before the patent application's filing date, and that this material information was withheld from the USPTO.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-04-07 | Plaintiff Lisen founded |
| 2019-05-22 | Defendant Clutch's alleged public disclosure and commercial launch of a similar design via Indiegogo |
| 2020-07-01 | Defendant Clutch's alleged public disclosure of "Clutch Charger V2" on Kickstarter |
| 2023-03-15 | D'031 Patent application filing date / Priority date |
| 2026-05-05 | U.S. Patent No. D1,125,031 issues |
| 2026-05-06 | Plaintiff Lisen receives cease-and-desist letter from Defendant Clutch |
| 2026-05-21 | Plaintiff Lisen responds to demand letter, asserting invalidity |
| 2026-05-21 | Defendant Clutch allegedly admits to 2019 public disclosure in a response to Lisen |
| 2026-07-09 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,125,031 - "Rechargeable battery pack"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,125,031, "Rechargeable battery pack," issued May 5, 2026.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a functional problem. The implicit goal is to create a new, original, and non-obvious ornamental design for a rechargeable battery pack that is aesthetically distinct from prior designs.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a rechargeable battery pack D'031 Patent, claim The design is characterized by an extremely thin, rectangular, card-like body with rounded corners, an integrated charging cable designed to sit flush within a recess on the top edge, and specific arrangements of ports and indicator lights D'031 Patent, figs. 1-9 Compl. ¶10 The overall aesthetic is one of minimalism and extreme portability.
- Technical Importance: In the portable charger market, designs that achieve a smaller, thinner, and more integrated form factor are commercially significant as they enhance portability, for example, by allowing the device to be carried in a wallet.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The D'031 Patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a rechargeable battery pack, as shown and described" D'031 Patent, claim Compl. ¶12 In design patents, the claim protects the overall visual appearance depicted in the patent's figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are identified as the LISEN P601 Ultra-thin and Stylish Power Bank, the LISEN Ultra Slim MagSafe Power Bank (5000mAh Qi2), the LISEN Qi2 15 W Ultra Slim MagSafe Power Bank, and related ultra-thin portable charger SKUs Compl. ¶2
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as portable charger products sold by Lisen Compl. ¶2 The dispute centers on their ornamental design, which Defendant Clutch has alleged infringes the D'031 Patent Compl. ¶16 The complaint does not provide images of the Accused Products, instead focusing its arguments on the invalidity and unenforceability of the D'031 Patent itself.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element rebuttal of infringement, as its primary focus is on invalidity and unenforceability. The infringement analysis in a design patent case turns on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.
The complaint makes a general assertion of non-infringement, stating that the Accused Products "do not embody the claimed ornamental design of the D031 Patent" Compl. ¶26 An image provided in the complaint depicts Clutch's prior product, showing a thin, black, card-like power bank with an integrated cable, which Lisen alleges is invalidating prior art Compl. p. 6 Without images of the Accused Products for comparison to the D'031 Patent's figures, a substantive analysis of the non-infringement claim is not possible based on the complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint raises the question of whether the claimed design is "dictated solely by functional considerations" Compl. ¶34 If key aspects, such as the thin profile or integrated cable, are deemed functional, they would not be protected by the design patent, narrowing the scope of the claim and potentially supporting a finding of non-infringement.
- Evidentiary Questions: A central evidentiary question for the non-infringement claim, once discovery proceeds, will be the degree of visual similarity between the Accused Products and the design claimed in the D'031 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases. The "claim" is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings. However, a critical legal question often arises regarding the boundary between protectable ornamental features and unprotectable functional aspects.
- The Term: The scope of the overall "ornamental design for a rechargeable battery pack."
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends on what aspects of the depicted design are deemed ornamental. Plaintiff Lisen has alleged the design is invalid because it is "dictated solely by functional considerations" Compl. ¶34 Practitioners may focus on this issue because if the design's key features are found to be primarily functional, the scope of patent protection would be very narrow or nonexistent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader (Ornamental) Interpretation: Clutch may argue that while a battery pack is functional, the specific aesthetic choices shown in the patent-such as the precise corner radii, the proportions of the body, the surface textures, and the particular shape of the cable recess-are ornamental and not required for the device to function D'031 Patent, figs. 7-9
- Evidence for a Narrower (Functional) Interpretation: Lisen may argue that the credit-card-like form factor is dictated by the function of fitting into a wallet, the integrated cable is functional for charging without a separate cord, and the placement of ports and lights is determined by internal electronic components Compl. ¶34
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged in the complaint, as Lisen is the plaintiff seeking declaratory judgment. However, the complaint confirms Lisen's knowledge of the D'031 Patent as of its receipt of a demand letter on May 6, 2026 Compl. ¶16 This fact could become relevant if Clutch files a counterclaim for infringement and alleges willfulness based on post-notice conduct.
- Unenforceability (Inequitable Conduct): The complaint makes a detailed allegation of inequitable conduct, which, if proven, would render the D'031 Patent unenforceable Compl. ¶¶38-49 The core allegations are:
- The inventor, an officer of Clutch, knew of prior public disclosures and commercial launches of products embodying the same or a substantially similar design, specifically an Indiegogo launch on May 22, 2019, and a Kickstarter launch in July 2020 Compl. ¶¶18-20 Compl. ¶45
- These events occurred more than one year before the patent's March 15, 2023 filing date, making them material prior art that would statutorily bar patentability Compl. ¶43
- The complaint alleges this material information was deliberately withheld from the USPTO with the specific intent to deceive the agency Compl. ¶45
- It is noted that the USPTO prosecution history for the D'031 Patent does not reflect any applicant-filed Information Disclosure Statement disclosing this alleged prior art Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶44
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears poised to center on the validity and enforceability of the D'031 patent, rather than a nuanced dispute over infringement. The key questions for the court include:
A dispositive factual question will be one of invalidity due to a statutory bar: Did the patentee's own product disclosures and commercial activities in 2019 and 2020 constitute public uses or sales of the claimed design more than one year prior to the patent application's March 2023 filing date, thereby invalidating the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
A related issue is one of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct: If the patentee's prior activities are deemed to be material prior art, does the evidence show that the patentee deliberately withheld that information from the USPTO with an intent to deceive, which would render the entire patent unenforceable?
A secondary question concerns the scope of the design claim: To what extent are the prominent features of the patented design, such as its thin form factor and integrated cable, dictated by function rather than ornament? The answer will determine the scope of protection and bear on both the infringement and validity analyses.