DCT

1:26-cv-09480

Omzz Trading Co Ltd v. Everplay Labs Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-09480, N.D. Ill., 08/07/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant, a foreign company not resident in the United States, may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also asserts personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), arguing Defendant has purposefully directed activities at the United States as a whole by obtaining and asserting a U.S. patent and selling products nationwide.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant's U.S. Patent No. **12,551,811**, related to magnetic play panel systems, is invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves modular, magnetic panels for constructing life-sized children's play structures, a niche within the consumer toy market.
  • Key Procedural History: This action was filed in response to Defendant Everplay's assertion of claim 1 of the patent-in-suit against Plaintiffs' products through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program. The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit issued only after repeated rejections during prosecution and required amendments, including the addition of a new claim, to overcome an obviousness rejection based on prior art.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-08-25 '**811** Patent Priority Date
2021-08-25 '811 Patent PCT Application Filed
2025-03-18 Non-final Office Action rejecting claims of '811 Patent
2025-08-05 Final Office Action rejecting claims of '811 Patent
2025-11-12 Claims of '811 Patent allowed after amendment
2026-02-17 '811 Patent Issued
2026-07-02 Defendant submitted APEX agreement asserting '811 Patent
2026-08-07 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,551,811 - "System, Panel and Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,551,811, "System, Panel and Method," issued February 17, 2026 (the "'811 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for children's building systems that are both structurally sound to prevent collapse and simple enough for a child to use without misunderstanding the securing mechanism ('811 Patent, col. 1:11-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The '811 Patent describes a system of panels for building play areas using a specialized magnetic connection. The core of the invention is a set of connectors and dowels that form the frame of each panel ('811 Patent, col. 20:6-10). These connectors house rotatable cylindrical magnets ('811 Patent, col. 17:20-27; '811 Patent, fig. 13). This design allows the magnets to automatically orient themselves to attract magnets in an adjacent panel, creating a secure connection "from any direction" without requiring the user to align specific magnetic poles ('811 Patent, claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The described system aims to provide an "any way" connection mechanism that is intuitive and robust, simplifying the construction of large, stable, life-sized play structures for children ('811 Patent, col. 7:30-32; '811 Patent, col. 8:37-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint notes that Defendant asserted independent claim 1 in its APEX submission Compl. ¶24 Plaintiffs seek a declaration that all claims of the '811 Patent are invalid Compl. ¶29 The patent contains four independent claims: 1, 17, 22, and 24 Compl. ¶20
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a "system for building a play area" with key elements including:
    • Two or more panels, each comprising a plurality of "connectors" and a plurality of "dowels."
    • Each connector defines first and second "recesses."
    • A plurality of "magnets" are positioned in the connectors and are "able to rotate."
    • A first dowel is received within the recesses of a first and second connector.
    • A second dowel, "angled with respect to the first dowel," is received within the recesses of the first and a third connector.
    • A "wherein" clause requiring that when panel edges are brought together, the magnets "orientate" to form a magnetic connection.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiffs' "Umoving Deluxe Magnetic Fort Building Panels Kit" and "Umoving 20-Piece Magnetic Fort Building Kit," sold on Amazon.com (the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as sets of "large, lightweight felt play panels" in various shapes that "attach to one another magnetically, edge to edge" Compl. ¶17
  • The complaint makes several technical assertions that appear to form the basis of a non-infringement argument. It states the panels are sold "fully assembled" and that a "user does not assemble the panels from component parts" Compl. ¶17 It further specifies that the Accused Products "include no clips" Compl. ¶17
  • Plaintiffs allege these products represent a "significant channel" of their U.S. sales Compl. ¶18

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity and does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a formal claim chart. The infringement dispute arises from Defendant's assertion of claim 1 in an Amazon APEX submission Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶27 The complaint's narrative suggests Plaintiffs' non-infringement position is based on a fundamental structural difference between the Accused Products and the system described in the '811 Patent. Plaintiffs describe their products as "fully assembled" felt panels, whereas claim 1 of the patent recites a detailed assembly of discrete "connectors," "dowels," and "recesses" (Compl. ¶17; '811 Patent, claim 1).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Mismatch: A primary point of contention will be whether the Accused Products, described as "fully assembled" felt panels that are "used as supplied" Compl. ¶17, contain the specific "plurality of connectors" and "plurality of dowels" required by claim 1. The complaint's description suggests the products may lack the discrete, user-assemblable components detailed in the patent's specification ('811 Patent, figs. 13-15).
    • Absence of Claimed Features: The complaint explicitly states the Accused Products "include no clips" Compl. ¶17 This fact, if true, would appear to be a direct defense against infringement of claims that require a "clip" element, such as dependent claim 5 and independent claim 24 ('811 Patent, claim 5; '811 Patent, claim 24). The complaint highlights that claim 24 was added late in prosecution to secure allowance, suggesting this element may be critical to the patent's validity and scope Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶32

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "connector"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "plurality of connectors" that define recesses for magnets and dowels. The definition of this term is critical, as Plaintiffs describe their products as integrated felt panels, which may not have distinct components that fit the description of a "connector" as shown in the patent.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader construction might argue "connector" refers to any part of the panel's structure that houses magnets and joins edge members, even if it is internal and not a separate piece. The specification describes the function broadly, stating "each dowel of the plurality of dowels connects two of the plurality of connectors together" ('811 Patent, col. 21:1-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower view, as Plaintiffs likely will, would point to figures in the patent that depict connectors as discrete, often angled, pieces (e.g., connector 1310, 1410) that join separate dowels ('811 Patent, fig. 13; '811 Patent, fig. 14; '811 Patent, col. 17:15-18).

  • The Term: "dowel"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "plurality of dowels" that are received by the connectors to form the panel's structure. This term is central to the dispute over whether Plaintiffs' "fully assembled" panels meet the claim limitations.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Defendant may argue that "dowel" should be construed functionally to mean any rod-like structural member forming the panel edge, regardless of whether it is separable or permanently encased. The specification notes that dowels and connectors form the edges and frame of each panel ('811 Patent, col. 3:59-63; '811 Patent, col. 21:50-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiffs will likely argue "dowel" refers to a separate, rod-like component intended for assembly, citing patent figures where dowels (e.g., 1308a, 1308b) are shown as distinct from the connector piece (1310) into which they are inserted ('811 Patent, fig. 13).

VI. Other Allegations

This declaratory judgment action is based on Defendant's pre-suit enforcement activities via the Amazon APEX program Compl. ¶¶4-5 While the complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement, it does request a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiffs to an award of attorneys' fees Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support this request beyond the general context of having to file suit to counter the APEX submission.

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

The resolution of this case may turn on two central questions:

  • Invalidity in Light of Prosecution History: A key question for the court will be one of validity: will the Plaintiffs' detailed obviousness arguments, which leverage the same prior art considered by the examiner ("Ornstein") in combination with other references ("Wei" and "Kim"), be sufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims are invalid? The complaint's focus on the prosecution history suggests this will be a primary line of attack Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶¶31-32

  • Definitional Scope and Infringement: A second core issue will be one of claim construction: can the terms "connector" and "dowel", which are described in the patent as parts of an assemblable frame ('811 Patent, figs. 13-15), be interpreted broadly enough to read on the internal structure of Plaintiffs' "fully assembled" felt panels Compl. ¶17? The answer will likely determine the outcome of the underlying infringement dispute that prompted this action.