DCT

1:26-cv-02927

Shenzhenshi Kuakuabao E Commerce Co Ltd v. Shenzhen Andelian Technology Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02927, E.D. Va., 09/03/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged under 35 U.S.C. § 293, which grants the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia jurisdiction over foreign patentees who have not designated a U.S. agent for service of process. Venue is also based on alleged infringement occurring within Virginia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their solar-powered mosquito killer products do not infringe and that Defendants' utility and design patents are invalid, following Defendants' patent infringement complaints filed through Amazon.com's internal complaint system.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns solar-powered, outdoor mosquito killers, commonly known as bug zappers, a consumer electronics product category.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendants' use of Amazon's internal intellectual property complaint system to halt sales of Plaintiffs' products. The complaint notes that the United States Patent and Trademark Office ordered a reexamination of the 'D828 patent on August 3, 2026, based on substantial questions of invalidity over prior art references, a proceeding that could impact the scope and validity of that patent's claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2022-03-15 Disclosure of prior art reference CN307171824
2023-01-31 Disclosure of prior art reference CN307820993
2023-04-10 Disclosure of prior art "ZRLKM" device on Amazon
2023-04-20 Disclosure of prior art via Facebook Public Posting
2023-06-02 Disclosure of prior art by Facebook User Salomon Abrego
2023-09-26 Disclosure of prior art reference CN308246059
2023-11-14 Disclosure of prior art reference CN308322747
2024-05-13 Earliest Priority Date for '093, 'D828, and 'D726 Patents
2025-09-23 'D828 Patent Issue Date
2026-06-30 '093 Patent Issue Date
2026-08-03 USPTO orders reexamination of 'D828 Patent
2026-08-25 'D726 Patent Issue Date
2026-09-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,667,093 - SOLAR MOSQUITO KILLER

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes limitations in prior art solar mosquito killers, including the need for an external power source, which restricts flexibility, and susceptibility to water damage through gaps at the control buttons, creating safety hazards. ('093 Patent, col. 1:24-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained solar-powered mosquito killer that does not require an external power source. ('093 Patent, col. 2:1-6). It purports to solve the water ingress problem by incorporating a "flexible waterproof cover" that is placed over the device's buttons to prevent rainwater from seeping into the internal electronics. ('093 Patent, col. 1:56-63; '093 Patent, abstract). The device consists of a solar module, a mosquito killing module (which includes a frame, an electric grid, and control circuitry), and a supporting module for ground placement. ('093 Patent, abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution aims to enhance the usability and durability of outdoor electronic insect control devices by making them more portable and weather-resistant. ('093 Patent, col. 2:1-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patent's claims generally. ('093 Patent, claim 1; '093 Patent, claim 11; '093 Patent, claim 14). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • A solar module.
    • A mosquito killing module with a frame, electric grid, control component, and a button with multiple gears (e.g., AUTO, OFF, ON).
    • A detachable supporting module.
    • A specific switch control circuit for managing the different operational states based on input from the solar module.

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,094,828 S - LAMP

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Not applicable. Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "lamp," which embodies the form of a solar mosquito killer. ('D828 Patent, CLAIM). The claimed design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of a rectangular housing with a grated, angled top surface (representing a solar panel), a visible grid on the front face, and two supporting stakes for ground insertion. ('D828 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: Not applicable. The value is in the design's unique aesthetic appearance.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The patent asserts: "The ornamental design for a lamp, as shown and described." ('D828 Patent, CLAIM).

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,144,726 S - POWER GRID FOR MOSQUITO KILLER

The Invention Explained

  • Technology Synopsis: The 'D726 Patent protects the ornamental design of a power grid component for a mosquito killer. ('D726 Patent, CLAIM). The design features a rectangular arrangement of interlaced, parallel electrodes held together by vertical connecting strips. ('D726 Patent, FIG. 3).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege that the power grid of their mosquito killers is accused of infringement but argue it cannot infringe because it is made according to prior art. (Compl. ¶39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Asserted Claims: "The ornamental design for a power grid for mosquito killer as shown and described." ('D726 Patent, CLAIM).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Plaintiffs' "Mosquito Killers," which are described as "solar devices for killing mosquitoes" sold on various online platforms, including Temu.com, SHEIN.com, and Walmart.com. (Compl. ¶¶1-7; Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs' products are manufactured "according to the prior art." (Compl. ¶20). An image provided in the complaint shows a device with a top-mounted solar panel, a forward-facing electrified grid, and ground stakes, which Plaintiffs contend is an example of their products for sale. (Compl. p. 8, image below ¶20). The central premise of the lawsuit is that these products were targeted by Defendants through infringement complaints on platforms like Amazon, leading to the freezing of Plaintiffs' product sales pages and alleged financial harm. (Compl. ¶13; Compl. ¶17; Compl. ¶51).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a traditional claim chart mapping patent elements to product features. Instead, it advances a legal theory of non-infringement based on the principle that a device embodying the prior art cannot infringe a valid patent. Plaintiffs contend that their products practice designs and technologies that were publicly disclosed before the priority date of the Defendants' patents. (Compl. ¶18; Compl. ¶35).

The complaint's non-infringement argument is intertwined with its invalidity argument. It posits that any interpretation of the patent claims broad enough to cover Plaintiffs' products would necessarily also cover the prior art, thereby rendering the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) or 103 (obviousness). (Compl. ¶36; Compl. ¶40; Compl. ¶44).

To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison, asserting that the design claimed in the 'D828 Patent is substantially identical to a prior art device disclosed by "ZRLKM" on April 10, 2023, more than a year before the patent's priority date. (Compl. ¶29). A table in the complaint presents a photograph of the alleged prior art ZRLKM device next to figures from the 'D828 patent to illustrate their alleged identity. (Compl. p. 10). A similar comparison is made for the 'D726 patent. (Compl. p. 11).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not focus on specific claim terms, as its primary argument rests on a wholesale invalidity and non-infringement theory based on prior art. However, analysis of the '093 patent suggests a term that may become critical if the case proceeds to claim construction.

  • The Term: "flexible waterproof cover"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the '093 patent's abstract and summary as a key feature distinguishing the invention from prior art devices susceptible to water damage. ('093 Patent, abstract; '093 Patent, col. 1:60-63). The scope of this term could be pivotal in determining both infringement and the patent's validity, as its definition will dictate what types of button protection fall within the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the cover's material as potentially being "a single material with waterproofing property and adhesion or shrinkage ductility, such as a rubber material, or composite materials such as polyethylene polypropylene composite material." ('093 Patent, col. 7:15-20). This language may support a broad construction encompassing various materials and forms.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific embodiments that could be used to argue for a narrower definition. One embodiment shows a non-transparent cover with a distinct "connecting head" that plugs into a socket on the device frame, while another shows a transparent cover "fixed to the frame component... using glue." ('093 Patent, col. 7:51-61; '093 Patent, col. 9:28-34). A party could argue these specific examples limit the term to these particular structures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. Instead of seeking enhanced damages for willfulness, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' actions constitute Tortious Interference with Business Relationships. (Compl. ¶¶46-53). The complaint asserts that Defendants knew their patents could not be validly interpreted to cover Plaintiffs' products and "filed bad-faith complaints" on online platforms with the intent to disrupt Plaintiffs' sales and contractual relationships. (Compl. ¶49; Compl. ¶50).

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

  • A central issue will be one of validity over prior art: does the evidence of prior public disclosures and sales, such as the "ZRLKM" device and other references cited by Plaintiffs, anticipate or render obvious the ornamental designs of the 'D828 and 'D726 patents and the utility claims of the '093 patent? The pending reexamination of the 'D828 patent suggests the USPTO has already found a substantial new question of patentability for at least one of the patents-in-suit.
  • A related and critical question is one of non-infringement by prior art practice: can Plaintiffs successfully demonstrate that their "Mosquito Killers" are substantially the same as the prior art? If so, the court will have to determine whether the Defendants' patent claims can be asserted against Plaintiffs' products without also being invalid over that same prior art.
  • For the design patents specifically, the case will turn on the scope of the ornamental design: in the eye of an ordinary observer, is the design of Plaintiffs' products substantially the same as the designs claimed in the 'D828 and 'D726 patents, particularly when viewed in the context of the alleged prior art designs?