DCT

5:26-cv-02843

Shenzhen Zhenweixin Technology Co Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:26-cv-02843, W.D. Tex., 06/05/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' business activities directed at consumers in the United States, including Texas, through interactive e-commerce stores, and alleged sales of infringing products to Texas residents.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' phone stand products infringe a patent related to a lever-actuated suction cup mounting mechanism.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical brackets for consumer electronics, specifically phone stands using a suction mechanism for attachment, a prevalent technology in the device accessories market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendants' representative in November 2024 to introduce its new phone stand product. Following the launch of Defendants' accused products in early 2025, Plaintiff claims to have sent formal notices of infringement in June 2025 and September 2025. These allegations of pre-suit and post-suit notice form the basis for the willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2024-09-01 Earliest Priority Date for '922 Patent
2024-11-06 Plaintiff allegedly contacted Defendants to introduce its product
2025-01-07 U.S. Patent Application for '922 Patent filed
Early 2025 Defendants allegedly launched accused products
2025-06-03 Plaintiff allegedly sent first notice of infringement to Defendants
2025-08-12 '922 Patent issued
2025-09-17 Plaintiff allegedly sent second notice of infringement to Defendants
2026-06-05 Amended Complaint filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,388,922, titled "Bracket," issued on August 12, 2025 Compl. ¶7

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a perceived deficiency in existing suction-cup-based brackets, where accidental contact with a release mechanism (like a protruding tab) can cause the suction to fail unexpectedly '922 Patent, col. 1:35-39
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more robust actuation mechanism. A connecting rod linked to the suction cup moves axially to create or release a vacuum '922 Patent, abstract This rod's movement is controlled by a rotating member that has an inclined "climbing track" on its surface. A pin on the connecting rod engages this track. By rotating an external lever (a "swing rod"), the user causes the pin to move along the track, which in turn drives the connecting rod up or down, thereby engaging or disengaging the suction cup '922 Patent, col. 2:1-17 '922 Patent, FIG. 2 This rotational action is intended to be more deliberate and less prone to accidental release.
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to enhance the "suction stability" of the bracket by replacing a simple pull-tab with a mechanically-advantaged rotational mechanism for engaging and releasing the suction cup '922 Patent, col. 4:42-45

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶¶29-30
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A base comprising a base body, a suction cup, and a connecting rod.
    • The connecting rod is movable along its axis between a first position (creating suction) and a second position (releasing suction).
    • The base body includes a rotatable "rotating member".
    • A "first cover body" covers the base body and has a horizontal "swing groove" that is "parallel to a bottom surface of the suction cup".
    • A "swing rod" connected to the rotating member passes through the swing groove to the exterior.
    • The rotation of the member is limited by the walls of the swing groove.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as phone stands sold by the Defendants, who operate under aliases including "LISEN Direct," "LISEN Official," and "B King" Compl. ¶¶1 Compl. ¶3

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are described as phone stands sold through e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com Compl. ¶17 The complaint alleges these products incorporate the "unique and novel technology claimed and shown in the '922 Patent" Compl. ¶23 A figure from the patent is included in the complaint to depict the allegedly unique configuration, which enables attachment to surfaces using a lever-actuated suction cup Compl. ¶6 The complaint references Exhibit C, containing screenshots of the accused products, to show they are offered for sale into the district Compl. ¶19 A representative figure from the patent, included in the complaint, illustrates the patented phone stand design featuring a base with a lever-actuated suction cup Compl. ¶6, p. 3

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' phone stands directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the '922 Patent Compl. ¶¶29-30 While the complaint references claim charts in an exhibit not provided with the filing, its narrative allegations map the features of the accused products to the elements of Claim 1.

'922 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a base, wherein the base comprises: a base body; a suction cup provided at a bottom portion of the base body; and a connecting rod provided on the base body and connected to the suction cup The accused phone stands allegedly include a base with a body, a suction cup at its bottom, and a connecting rod linked to the suction cup. ¶23; ¶29 col. 13:5-11
wherein the connecting rod is movable between a first position and a second position along its axial direction... to... form a vacuum negative pressure cavity... or... to release vacuum negative pressure The connecting rod in the accused products allegedly moves up and down to drive the suction cup, thereby creating or releasing a vacuum to attach or detach from a surface. ¶6; ¶23 col. 13:14-25
wherein the base body is provided with a rotating member, the rotating member is rotatable relative to the base body The accused products are alleged to contain an internal component that rotates relative to the base to actuate the suction mechanism. ¶23; ¶29 col. 13:26-28
the base body is covered with a first cover body; and a swing groove is horizontally defined in the first cover body; the swing groove is parallel to a bottom surface of the suction cup The accused products allegedly have an outer cover with a horizontal slot for a lever, with the slot oriented parallel to the plane of the suction cup's bottom surface. ¶6; ¶23 col. 13:29-33
the rotating member is connected with a swing rod; an end portion of the swing rod passes through the swing groove and extends out of the first cover body The internal rotating component is allegedly connected to an external lever that protrudes through the slot in the cover, allowing user operation. ¶6; ¶29 col. 13:34-37
wherein a rotation angle of the rotating member is limited by two end groove walls of the swing groove The lever on the accused products allegedly moves between two hard stops defined by the ends of the slot, limiting the rotation of the internal mechanism. ¶23; ¶29 col. 13:38-40

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of "swing rod". A question for the court could be whether the specific lever or handle on the accused product constitutes a "swing rod" as contemplated by the patent, or if it is a structurally different type of actuator that falls outside the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question may be whether the accused product's lever groove is geometrically "parallel to a bottom surface of the suction cup" as required by Claim 1. Evidence regarding the precise angle and orientation of this feature on the accused product will be critical to determining literal infringement of this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "swing rod"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the user interface for actuating the patented mechanism. Its construction is critical because any difference between the patent's described embodiment and the accused product's lever could create a non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent figures show a specific short, protruding rod, and Defendants may argue their product employs a different structure, such as an integrated rotating ring or a differently shaped handle.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification functionally describes the part as something that is rotated to drive the rotating member ("rotating the swing rod 320 can drive the rotating member 300 to rotate", '922 Patent, col. 6:63-65). This language could support a construction that covers any lever-like component that performs this rotational driving function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a "rod" that "passes through" a "groove" '922 Patent, col. 13:34-37 The figures consistently depict a small, cylindrical-type rod (element 320) '922 Patent, FIG. 1 '922 Patent, FIG. 2 This may support a narrower construction limited to a component that is rod-like in form.

The Term: "parallel to a bottom surface of the suction cup"

  • Context and Importance: This geometric limitation on the "swing groove" is a specific constraint that must be met for literal infringement. Its interpretation will be central to comparing the claim to the physical accused device.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for infringement may suggest that "parallel" should be interpreted in the context of the invention's function, meaning "substantially parallel" or oriented to permit the horizontal swinging motion, rather than requiring strict mathematical parallelism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "parallel" is a precise geometric relationship. The claim also states the groove is "horizontally defined" '922 Patent, col. 13:30-31, which reinforces a specific, flat orientation. This could support a narrow interpretation where any significant deviation or angle in the accused product's groove would place it outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement Compl. ¶29 but does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as detailing instructions or components provided to third parties. The primary focus of the factual allegations is on direct infringement by Defendants.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint lays a detailed foundation for willfulness. It alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the technology via a communication and product demonstration from Plaintiff on November 6, 2024, before the patent issued Compl. ¶22 It further alleges that Defendants received actual notice of the issued '922 Patent and their infringement on at least two separate occasions, September 17, 2025 and June 3, 2025, but continued their infringing activities Compl. ¶¶24-25

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "swing rod", which is tied to a specific embodiment in the patent's figures, be construed broadly enough to read on the particular lever mechanism implemented in the accused phone stands, or does the design of the accused device fall outside this claimed structure?
  • A dispositive evidentiary question will be one of geometric compliance: does the accused product's lever-actuating slot meet the precise limitation of being "parallel to a bottom surface of the suction cup" as required by Claim 1, or is there a measurable deviation that supports a finding of non-infringement?
  • A central question for damages will be knowledge and intent: can Plaintiff prove that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the specific patented technology and copied it, and that they continued to sell accused products after receiving multiple, explicit post-issuance notices of infringement, thereby justifying an award of enhanced damages for willfulness?
Loading Amended Complaint