If you sell “foldable storage boxes” or “folding carts/shopping carts” on Amazon and your products have wheels, lids, or stackable designs—or even “double front doors”—this article is likely useful to you.

Rights protection in this field is no longer as simple as 'sending a warning email': once named, the consequences range from link takedowns to involvement in U.S. courts. DJ (Confirmation of Non-Infringement/Invalidity)The process, cost, and pace are completely different.

To start, here is a self-check list: if any two of the following features appear in your structure, you should conduct a claim comparison as soon as possible:

• The sidewall consists of two sections (two hinged panels). Once unfolded, it is secured across the joint by a “sliding catch/slider”;

• The top cover/lid has recesses or embossed markings to position the wheels of the cart above, enabling stable stacking;

• When stacked, items can still be accessed by opening the double front doors;

• The lid can support weight (and may be used as a seat) or form a fixed structure with the pull rod and locking caster wheels.

Based on publicly available docket information, this action was filed by Shanghai Ruijun Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (Freebat) against dbest products, Inc., a U.S. company, under docket no. 1:25-cv-15487 (N.D. Illinois). The case is classified as a declaratory judgment (DJ) action, which generally turns on two issues: whether there has been infringement and whether the relevant rights are valid. Current public information indicates that the complaint and accompanying exhibits have been filed, and the case remains in progress.

Based solely on the contents of the complaint, currently available public information is insufficient to establish directly that Freebat has been taken down or to determine what specific letter, if any, it has received. However, the combination of “DJ” and “the patent holder is dbest” closely aligns with dbest’s historical litigation approach (discussed below).

Many sellers tend to overlook one thing:dbest does not rely on enforcing a “single patent”; instead, it employs a coordinated strategy involving continuation and/or partial continuation applications.What you see is just one of the cards.

What does this mean?

First, the priority is earlier (2020): It is more advantageous to fight against 'later-appearing similar products'.

Second, multiple granted patents within the same patent family make it easier to establish a litigation and negotiation structure involving “multiple patents and multiple levels of claims.”

The final portion keeps the cases alive, potentially creating the complexity that different claims correspond to different priority dates (these must be analyzed separately in invalidity and infringement proceedings, making it more difficult for competitors to formulate a response).

Risk warning: Many defendant products that have implemented 'foldable box + pull rod + locking wheel' may not necessarily fall into it; the real high risk often lies in the structural details of 'two-section side wall + track slider cross-seam lock'.

[Structural Comparison] Compare the product image with the patent drawing side by side: these are the four “focus points” typically examined in infringement complaints or lawsuits.

1. “Sliding lock/rigidity lock” — two-stage sidewall arrangement + rail/slider locking across the seam (high-risk area)

2. “Dual front doors/Front doors” — items remain accessible when stacked (often both a selling point and a point of comparison)

3. “Wheel Set + Stacking Locator” — how the wheel-set configuration interfaces with the cover plate or recess (examine the wheel axle centerlines and locating grooves)

4. “Cover plate/seat plate + locking latch” — the cover-plate securing method and reinforcement member (often recited in dependent claims)

Product video link:https://www.amazon.com/vdp/05bd89f07f794ae0b10a10cd32d94089product=B0C9KK9RZH&ref=cm_sw_cp_r_ib_dt_k6dcKKXOCxtR9

Note: The image comparisons above are intended only to help sellers quickly identify the "comparison points." An actual determination of infringement must still be based on claim construction and an all-elements comparison, and must also consider factors such as the doctrine of equivalents and the prior art defense.

Given that this case involves a DJ (N.D. Illinois) and dbest's previous 'DJ—counterclaim—strong remedy' path (SACV 21-4758), it is recommended to focus on:

(1) Whether dbest will file a counterclaim within the response period, typically alleging infringement of the patent(s) at issue (which may be more than one), seeking injunctive relief, and claiming damages.

(2) Whether the list of patents at issue is expanded: In addition to Patent No. 12,275,446, dbest’s patent-family members and related patents (e.g., Patent Nos. 11,338,835 and 11,565,735) are often asserted together in commercial practice (see the patent documents for the patent-family relationships).

(3) Focus of comparison: Whether the Freebat product has a corresponding structure featuring “two sidewall plates and a track slider that locks across a gap” (the point of relevance for claim 1).

(4) Battle of evidence: E-commerce pages, listing dates, structural design iterations, supply-chain drawings, and sample notarization will all be critical.

Taken together, the three points above show that the case type (DJ) sets the pace, the patent family determines the combination of moves, and the structural focus determines whether you are the target.

(1) First prepare a “patent claims–product structure” comparison table; do not focus solely on visual similarity. Check:

• Whether the side wall comprises two plates capable of rotating relative to each other;

• Whether there is a track extending across a seam;

• Whether a slideable member moves from being located only on the first plate to a locked state spanning two plates.

(2) Layered risk control: leave the core structure untouched while preserving the peripheral selling points

The cover/seat, pull rod, locking wheel, etc. are often not the only focal points, but their combination can “increase the completeness of the alleged narrative”.

(3) Reserve evidence and budget for “DJ/counterclaims/settlement” (turning a passive situation into a manageable one)

When the patent owner continues to file complaints and your product has substantial sales or inventory, in addition to conventional counter-notice and settlement negotiations, you may consider pursuing a DJ (declaratory judgment of non-infringement or non-invalidity) strategy to advance the dispute in a more favorable court and on a more favorable schedule. However, this route is costly and time-consuming, so you must first assess the likelihood of success and its impact on cash flow.