Wu v. Apollo Investment Holding Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xiaohui Wu, d/b/a Happy Memory (China); and Cangnan County New Vibration Plastic Film Co., Ltd., d/b/a Woi Life (China)
  • Defendant: Apollo Investment Holding Co., LLC (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Cross-Border Counselor LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00507, E.D. Wisc., 03/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin because the Defendant, Apollo, is a Wisconsin limited liability company that resides in the district and directed the patent enforcement conduct from an address in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to a foldable pet waste pickup device, and that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical handheld tools for picking up objects, specifically designed to be foldable for convenient storage and transport.
• Key Procedural History: The dispute arises from Defendant's assertions of U.S. Patent No. 9,163,370 through Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express process, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings from the e-commerce platform. The complaint alleges that the patent applicant narrowed the claims during prosecution to a specific locking button and sleeve hole limitation to overcome prior art.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,163,370 - "Foldable Pickup Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,163,370, "Foldable Pickup Device," issued October 20, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art pickup devices often relied on ropes, which could lead to "wearing off, breakage, repair, and inconveniences associated with rope repair and replacement" over a long period of use '370 Patent, col. 1:32-36
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by using a system of rigid upper and lower operating sticks to directly control the opening and closing of the picking-up plates, thereby avoiding the use of ropes '370 Patent, col. 1:45-48 A key feature is a "linkage accessory" that connects the upper and lower sticks, allowing the device to be folded, and a "fixation sleeve" with a "button hole" that engages a "locking button" on the device's cover to maintain the main rod in a straight, linear state for operation '370 Patent, col. 1:52-55 '370 Patent, col. 3:41-47
• Technical Importance: The claimed design aims to provide a more durable and easily maintainable foldable pickup device that is also convenient to store and transport '370 Patent, col. 2:43-54

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 8 Compl. ¶25
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • a handle
  • an upper operating stick movable relative to the handle
  • a linkage portion
  • a lower operating stick connected through the linkage portion
  • a pair of picking-up members
  • a shaft connecting the lower operating stick and the picking-up members
  • a cover for the upper and lower operating sticks
  • a sleeve slidable along the upper operating stick to cover the linkage portion
  • wherein the cover has a lower portion comprising a locking button, and the sleeve comprises a hole configured to receive the locking button to maintain the sticks in a linear form
• Independent Claim 8 requires:
  • a handle
  • an upper operating stick movable relative to the handle
  • a lower operating stick connected to the upper operating stick
  • a pair of picking-up members
  • a linkage portion connecting the upper and lower sticks, where the device is foldable
  • a cover for the upper and lower operating sticks
  • a sleeve slidable along the upper operating stick to cover the linkage portion
  • wherein a lower portion of the cover comprises a locking button, and the sleeve comprises a hole configured to receive the locking button to maintain the sticks in a linear form
• The complaint notes that because the independent claims are not infringed, no dependent claims are infringed Compl. ¶30

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies three products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs): B07WPNZGFS, sold by Plaintiff Happy Memory, and B0BPGXZGJ9 and B0BQ1TV2VS, sold by Plaintiffs Happy Memory and Woi Life, respectively Compl. ¶3 The latter two are alleged to be the same product in different colors Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are foldable pet waste pickup devices sold on Amazon.com Compl. ¶2 Compl. ¶23
• The complaint alleges specific structural differences between the accused products and the patent claims. Product B07WPNZGFS is alleged to use a "separable plug-in connector or collar structure" instead of a "foldable linkage" and is "not foldable at a linkage portion" Compl. ¶28
• Products B0BPGXZGJ9 and B0BQ1TV2VS are alleged to use a "different recess arrangement at the joint" and a "sleeve without a hole," which differs from the claimed locking button and sleeve hole mechanism Compl. ¶29
• The complaint alleges that Defendant's patent assertions through Amazon's enforcement system caused the removal of these products' listings, resulting in lost sales and commercial harm Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶23

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following tables summarize Plaintiffs' key non-infringement positions for the asserted independent claims.

'370 Patent Infringement Allegations

Note: The non-infringement allegations for the elements of independent claim 8 are substantively identical to those for claim 1, as the relevant limitations are present in both claims Compl. ¶25

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute raises a question of claim scope regarding whether the term "foldable linkage portion" can be construed to read on a "separable plug-in connector or collar structure" as allegedly used in one of the accused products Compl. ¶28
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused products' alleged "different recess arrangement" and "sleeve without a hole" Compl. ¶29 is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed "locking button" and corresponding "hole" in the sleeve required to maintain the device in a linear form '370 Patent, col. 4:21-24 The complaint suggests this limitation was added to overcome prior art, which may affect its interpretation Compl. ¶26

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "foldable linkage portion"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for the non-infringement argument against product B07WPNZGFS, which allegedly uses a "separable plug-in connector" instead Compl. ¶28 The definition will determine whether a mechanism that allows two parts to be completely separated and reconnected, rather than folding on a hinge, falls within the claim's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that after use, the fixation sleeve can be removed, the "linkage accessory 6 can be exposed," and the "main rod is foldable onto itself" '370 Patent, col. 3:57-60 This focus on the result (folding) rather than the specific mechanism could support a broader reading that includes any joint enabling a folded state for storage.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "linkage accessory" as a single component that "connects the upper operating stick... to the lower operating stick" '370 Patent, col. 3:9-11 This language, along with figures showing a single connecting piece, may support an interpretation requiring a unitary, non-separable joint.

• The Term: "a hole configured to receive the locking button"

• Context and Importance: This limitation is the basis for the non-infringement allegation for two of the accused products, which allegedly use a "sleeve without a hole" and a "different recess arrangement" Compl. ¶29 The complaint also alleges this feature was key to the patent's allowance Compl. ¶26, potentially leading to a narrower construction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "hole." A party could argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might encompass a recess, detent, or other form of receptacle, not just a through-hole.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly and specifically refers to "button holes 5" located on the "fixation sleeves 4" which receive the "locking buttons 7" '370 Patent, col. 3:16-21 This specific language, describing a button/hole pairing, may support a narrower construction that excludes a mere recess or friction-fit mechanism and requires a distinct, defined aperture in the sleeve.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

This declaratory judgment action appears to center on specific, structural differences between the accused products and the patent claims. The resolution of the case may turn on the following key questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "foldable linkage portion," as described in the patent, be construed to cover a "separable plug-in connector" that allows for disassembly rather than articulated folding?
• A second key issue will be one of structural and functional equivalence: Does the accused products' alleged use of a "recess arrangement" and a "sleeve without a hole" meet the claim requirement of a "locking button" being received by a "hole," particularly if, as alleged, this limitation was added to distinguish the invention from prior art during prosecution?