Guangzhou Shanshui Tongxun Shebei Youxian Gongsi v. Phone Lasso LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GUANGZHOU SHANSHUI TONGXUN SHEBEI YOUXIAN GONGSI, et al. (China/Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: Phone Lasso, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00828, E.D.N.C., 02/20/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina because the Defendant, Phone Lasso, LLC, resides in the district and maintains its principal place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their phone lanyard products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to a lanyard apparatus for carrying electronic devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns adhesive-backed lanyards designed to attach to handheld electronic devices, a product category within the high-volume consumer mobile accessories market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was filed in response to an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding initiated by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs' product listings. The Plaintiffs highlight the patent’s prosecution history, alleging that the patentee amended the claims to add a limitation requiring a "patterned protective layer" to overcome prior art rejections, an amendment central to their non-infringement arguments.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-09	U.S. Patent No. 8,523,031 Priority Date
2013-09-03	U.S. Patent No. 8,523,031 Issue Date
2025-04-15	Defendant files Amazon APEX infringement complaint
2026-02-20	Plaintiffs file Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,523,031 - “Lanyard Apparatus for Carrying Devices”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,523,031 (“the ’031 Patent”), titled “Lanyard Apparatus for Carrying Devices,” issued on September 3, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the risk that ubiquitous handheld electronic devices, like cell phones, may be easily dropped, damaged, stolen, or lost, resulting in significant expense and inconvenience for the owner (’031 Patent, col. 1:11-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus consisting of a flexible fabric substrate with an adhesive layer on one side for attachment to a device and a lanyard secured to the substrate (’031 Patent, abstract). A key feature is a removable protective layer over the adhesive that includes one or more printed patterns; these patterns are intended to guide a user in cutting an aperture in the substrate to accommodate features on the device, such as a camera lens, before attachment (’031 Patent, col. 8:1-14; ’031 Patent, FIG. 12A).
• Technical Importance: This solution offers a method for retrofitting a wide variety of electronic devices with a lanyard, and the patterned guide for creating cutouts provides a user-friendly customization feature not inherent in a simple adhesive patch (’031 Patent, col. 2:21-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 20 (’031 Patent, col. 9:4-21; ’031 Patent, col. 10:11-30; Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements:
  • A flexible substrate with an adhesive layer on a first surface.
  • A protective layer releasably secured to the adhesive material.
  • A lanyard secured to the substrate for suspension around a user's neck.
  • The protective layer includes one or more patterns to facilitate forming cutouts in the substrate.
• Independent Claim 20 Essential Elements:
  • A substrate with an attachment loop and an adhesive layer on a first surface.
  • A protective layer releasably secured to the adhesive material.
  • A lanyard secured to the attachment loop.
  • The protective layer includes one or more patterns to facilitate forming cutouts in the substrate.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Non-Infringing Phone Lanyards" sold by the Plaintiffs through various Amazon storefronts, including "SHANSHUI CASE," "takyu," and "YUAN-HONG" (Compl. ¶¶34-39). The products are referenced by specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) (Compl. ¶¶35-39).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are phone lanyards designed to be attached to mobile devices (Compl. ¶2). The complaint asserts a key structural distinction among the products. One product, identified by ASIN B0CQ8796QK, is alleged to be a simple substrate without any adhesive or removable protective layer (Compl. ¶¶42-43). The complaint includes a photograph of this product, showing a single-piece tab (Compl., p. 14, Figure 3). The remaining accused products are alleged to include an adhesive layer and a removable protective layer, but the complaint asserts this removable layer is blank and does not include any patterns for forming cutouts (Compl. ¶44). A representative photograph shows a product with a plain white removable layer (Compl., p. 15, Figure 4).
• The complaint emphasizes the commercial importance of the Amazon marketplace, describing it as the Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel into the United States" and noting that the Defendant's enforcement action threatens to remove their listings (Compl. ¶¶54-55).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiffs' central non-infringement position with respect to the key disputed limitation.

• ’031 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
wherein the protective layer includes one or more patterns to facilitate forming cutouts in the substrate and securing the substrate to the housing of the hand held electronic device	Plaintiffs allege their products either lack a removable protective layer entirely or include a blank removable layer that contains no patterns to guide a user in forming cutouts.	¶¶41, 44, 61, 64	col. 8:1-8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint heavily relies on the patent’s prosecution history, alleging that the "patterned protective layer" limitation was added to overcome a prior art rejection (Compl. ¶¶30, 33, 65). This raises the question of whether prosecution history estoppel will bar the Defendant from asserting that a blank protective layer infringes the claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
  • Technical Questions: The dispute presents two primary factual questions. First, for the product identified as ASIN B0CQ8796QK, does it include a "protective layer of material releasably secured to the adhesive material" at all (Compl. ¶¶62-63)? Second, for the remaining products, does the blank removable layer (Compl., p. 15, Figure 4) contain any feature that could be construed as a "pattern" that "facilitates forming cutouts" as required by the claims (Compl. ¶64)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "one or more patterns to facilitate forming cutouts"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in both asserted independent claims and was allegedly added during prosecution to secure allowance of the patent (Compl. ¶30). The entire non-infringement case, as pleaded, appears to turn on whether the accused products meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Defendant (patentee) may argue that the term is not limited to printed lines. The specification states that "patterns of various shapes and sizes may be utilized" (’031 Patent, col. 8:13-14), which could be argued to encompass features beyond explicit markings.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Plaintiffs will likely argue that the term requires explicit visual guides as shown in the patent's figures. The specification explicitly describes the patterns as corresponding to camera lenses for specific phone models (e.g., "pattern 90a corresponds to a camera lens for cell phone A") and shows them as distinct printed shapes on the protective layer (’031 Patent, col. 8:1-8; ’031 Patent, FIGS. 12A-12C). The complaint asserts that this limitation was the "asserted point of distinction" over the prior art during prosecution (Compl. ¶31).

VI. Other Allegations

• Allegations of Bad-Faith Enforcement: The complaint does not contain traditional claims for infringement. Instead, it includes a section titled "Defendant's Bad-Faith Enforcement and Refusal to Withdraw Its Baseless Complaint" (Compl., p. 15). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant pursued its Amazon APEX complaint despite receiving detailed non-infringement notices and without conducting a reasonable pre-filing investigation (Compl. ¶¶48-49). Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer C).

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

This declaratory judgment action appears to center on a single, allegedly distinguishing claim limitation. The key questions for the court will likely be:

• A core issue will be one of prosecution history estoppel: Does the patent’s prosecution history, specifically the amendment adding the "patterns to facilitate forming cutouts" limitation to overcome prior art, create a clear surrender of claim scope that forecloses any infringement argument against products with a blank removable layer?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual characterization: For the products that do include a removable layer, is there any physical feature—such as the shape, score lines, or texture of the layer itself—that could be factually and legally construed as a "pattern" that "facilitates forming cutouts" within the meaning of the claims?