DCT

1:26-cv-08926

Shenzhen Yuanjian Electric Power Engineering Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Fengshun Technology Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-08926, S.D.N.Y., 10/10/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, a group of e-commerce sellers, seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s design patent for a "Sealing Plug for Bottle Cap" is invalid and not infringed by their replacement seal products, and further allege tortious interference with their business on Amazon.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the ornamental design of a component part—a silicone seal—used in consumer water bottles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this lawsuit was precipitated by Defendant filing multiple patent infringement complaints through Amazon.com's intellectual property reporting system, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings. Plaintiffs have also filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is reportedly pending.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-04-28 Earliest application date for related Runway Blue design patents cited as prior art
2020-02-01 Alleged start of U.S. sales of Owala FreeSip products containing the prior art seal
2020-03-01 Owala FreeSip product with alleged prior art seal sold on Amazon.com (no later than)
2021-02-15 Customer reviews with photos of the alleged prior art seal posted on Amazon.com
2023-08-30 U.S. Design Patent Application No. 29/911,236 filed
2023-12-12 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,007,305 issues
2026-07-22 Defendant begins submitting infringement complaints to Amazon against Plaintiffs
2026-08-11 Request for ex parte reexamination of the '305 Patent filed with the USPTO
2026-10-10 First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,007,305 - "Sealing Plug for Bottle Cap"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D1,007,305 the "’305 Patent", issued December 12, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The implicit goal of the '305 Patent is to provide a new, original, and ornamental design for a sealing plug used in a bottle cap Compl. ¶22 '305 Patent, claim
  • The Patented Solution: The '305 Patent discloses the ornamental design of a one-piece, flexible seal (['305 Patent, FIGS. 1-8](https://ex:cit:4)). The design features an arched or curved base from which two distinct sealing protrusions extend from the same face: a larger, oblong or kidney-shaped protrusion and a smaller, circular one positioned above it (['305 Patent, FIG. 1](https://ex:cit:5); ['305 Patent, FIG. 3](https://ex:cit:6)). The complaint describes the intended function of such a part as a "flexible seal that seats in the lid of a drinking bottle and closes the drinking openings of its spout" Compl. ¶22
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the patented design is "the same as" the silicone seal used in the commercially available Owala FreeSip water bottle, suggesting the design's relevance is tied to its use in a popular consumer product Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶28

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The '305 Patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for a sealing plug for bottle cap, as shown and described" Compl. ¶22 '305 Patent, claim
  • The claimed design consists of the visual characteristics embodied in the patent's drawings, the key features of which include:
    • A main body with a generally arched profile.
    • A larger, non-circular sealing protrusion on the front face.
    • A smaller, generally circular sealing protrusion on the front face, located above the larger protrusion.
  • The complaint does not reserve the right to assert other claims, as a design patent has only one claim.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

As this is a declaratory judgment action, the products at issue are those sold by the Plaintiffs. They are identified as "replacement parts and accessories for drinking bottles," specifically replacement silicone seals intended for use with Owala brand water bottles Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶24

Functionality and Market Context

The Plaintiffs' products are described as one-piece silicone seals designed to replace the original "FreeSip Seal" in Owala water bottle lids Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶24 These products are sold to U.S. customers through Plaintiffs' storefronts on Amazon.com, which is described as their "principal sales channel" Compl. ¶18 The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement complaints to Amazon have resulted in the removal of 369 separate product listings, leading to over 55,000 units of stranded inventory and significant commercial harm Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶41

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe the ’305 Patent Compl. ¶¶51-54 A formal claim chart is not applicable, as the complaint's non-infringement theory is holistic and based on the interplay between the patent's scope and the prior art, rather than a feature-by-feature breakdown.

The core of Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument is that the scope of the ’305 Patent is severely limited by prior art Compl. ¶53 Plaintiffs allege that the patented design is identical to the "FreeSip Seal" used in Owala water bottles, which they claim was on sale and in public use more than three years before the patent application was filed Compl. ¶¶3, 24-26 They also cite other existing design patents as relevant prior art Compl. ¶29

Based on this, Plaintiffs contend that for the ’305 Patent to be valid at all, its scope must be narrowed to cover only ornamental details that distinguish it from this prior art Compl. ¶53 Applying the "ordinary observer" test for design patent infringement, Plaintiffs argue that an observer familiar with this prior art would not be deceived into believing Plaintiffs' products—which allegedly embody the prior art design—are the same as the claimed design Compl. ¶53 The complaint references Exhibit D, which it states contains printouts of Amazon listings and customer reviews, including photographs of the "FreeSip Seal" that allegedly show the prior art design in use Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶28

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central infringement question is the proper scope of the '305 patent's design claim. Does the alleged prior public use of the nearly identical Owala FreeSip seal Compl. ¶¶24-28 limit the patent's scope to such an extent that it does not cover Plaintiffs' replacement seals?
  • Technical Questions: The case will require a direct visual comparison under the ordinary observer test. A key question is whether any minor ornamental differences, if they exist, between the patented design and the Plaintiffs' products are sufficient to avoid infringement, particularly when the comparison is made in the context of the alleged prior art Compl. ¶53

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"The ornamental design for a sealing plug for bottle cap, as shown and described"

Context and Importance

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the visual design depicted in the drawings. The construction of this "term" is therefore the determination of the design's overall visual impression and scope. This process is central to both the infringement analysis (the ordinary observer test) and the validity analysis (comparison to prior art). Practitioners may focus on which aspects of the design are ornamental and which are dictated by function, as functional elements are not protected.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patentee would likely argue that the claim covers the overall visual appearance of the seal as a whole, as depicted in the patent's figures, and that this holistic impression is what creates the design's unique ornamentality (['305 Patent, FIGS. 1-8](https://ex:cit:4)).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint argues for a narrow interpretation by asserting that the "overall shape of the claimed design is also dictated by its function" Compl. ¶32 It alleges the "size, spacing, and profile of its sealing portions are determined by the geometry of the lid recess and spout openings that the seal must fit and close," suggesting these features should be excluded from the scope of protection Compl. ¶32 Further, the complaint contends that the scope must be limited by the prior art "to those ornamental details, if any, that distinguish the claimed design from the FreeSip Seal" Compl. ¶53

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

Plaintiffs seek a declaration of non-infringement for all forms of liability, denying that they have "directly or indirectly" infringed by "making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing" their products Compl. ¶52 Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶B

Willful Infringement

While willfulness is not alleged by Plaintiffs, the complaint makes strong allegations regarding Defendant's bad faith enforcement. It alleges Defendant knew the '305 Patent was invalid when it filed infringement complaints on Amazon because the design was taken from the pre-existing Owala FreeSip seal Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶58 The complaint characterizes Defendant's actions as "objectively baseless" and undertaken for the improper "purpose of removing competing listings from Amazon.com" Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶58 These allegations underpin the separate claim for tortious interference and a request for the case to be declared exceptional, which could permit recovery of attorneys' fees Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶F

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on three primary questions:

  • A central issue will be one of anticipation: is the design claimed in the '305 Patent legally identical to the "FreeSip Seal" design, which was allegedly on sale and in public use more than a year before the patent's filing date, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
  • A key validity challenge will be functionality: to what extent are the features of the claimed design—such as the size, shape, and placement of its sealing surfaces—dictated by the functional requirements of the bottle cap it is designed to fit, potentially rendering the design unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 171?
  • Beyond patent law, a core question for the tortious interference claim will be one of intent: can Plaintiffs prove that Defendant knew its patent was invalid or not infringed and asserted it through Amazon's complaint system in bad faith for the primary purpose of harming competitors, rather than enforcing legitimate intellectual property rights?