GUANGZHO EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. et al. v. Nine Stars Group USA Inc.

GUANGZHO EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., along with EKO DEVELOPMENT LTD., EKO NORTH AMERICA, INC., and EKO GROUP, LTD. (collectively, "EKO"), are a group of affiliated operating companies primarily involved in the design, import, distribution, and manufacturing of smart household products, including motion sensor trash cans and other home essentials. EKO North America Inc. focuses on the North American market, while Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. and EKO Development Limited are trading and manufacturing arms based in China, known for producing waste bins and other home improvement items. They are petitioners in this Inter Partes Review (IPR). The defendant and patent owner, Nine Stars Group USA Inc., is also an operating company, recognized as a leading innovator in smart, touchless trash cans and household products, specializing in motion sensor technology. Nine Stars Group USA Inc. designs, patents, and manufactures these waste management solutions for residential and commercial markets.

The technology at the heart of this dispute involves advanced waste management solutions, specifically motion sensor and touchless trash cans. While the specific accused products are not explicitly detailed in the IPR filing name, given the nature of both parties' businesses, the accused technology likely pertains to Nine Stars Group USA Inc.'s range of smart, touchless trash cans. The sole patent at issue is US Patent 10,822,165, which broadly relates to waste receptacles or similar household items incorporating sensor technology for automatic operation. A one-line technical sketch of U.S. Patent 10,822,165 is a system and method for a touchless waste receptacle.

This case is proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number IPR2025-01191, having been filed on August 19, 2025, and is currently in the "Instituted" status. The PTAB is a specialized administrative court within the USPTO that reviews the patentability of claims in issued patents. The institution of an IPR signifies that the PTAB has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged by EKO is unpatentable, allowing the proceedings to move forward to a trial phase. This venue is significant as IPRs offer a potentially faster and less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, and outcomes can influence parallel or future patent infringement suits by potentially invalidating asserted claims. The IPR's outcome could have a notable impact on the competitive landscape of the smart waste management industry, particularly concerning motion sensor technology for trash cans, given that both parties are active product companies in this market.

The IPR proceeding IPR2025-01191 was filed on August 19, 2025, by GUANGZHO EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. et al. challenging US patent 10822165, owned by Nine Stars Group USA Inc. The status is "Pending - Instituted."

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and current posture, based on available information:

Parallel District Court Litigation:

• 2024-08-28: Nine Stars Group USA Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against GUANGZHO EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., EKO DEVELOPMENT LTD., EKO NORTH AMERICA, INC., and EKO GROUP, LTD. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case number 5:24-cv-01843. This litigation involves the patent-at-issue, US patent 10822165. The defendants in this district court case are the petitioners in the IPR.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceedings - IPR2025-01191:

• 2025-08-19: GUANGZHO EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., EKO DEVELOPMENT LTD., EKO NORTH AMERICA, INC., and EKO GROUP, LTD. filed the IPR petition IPR2025-01191 challenging US patent 10822165.
• Institution Decision: The IPR has been instituted. While the exact date of institution is not available in the provided snippets, an institution decision typically occurs within six months of the petition's filing. The PTAB has a statutory deadline to issue a final written decision within one year of institution, though this can be extended by six months for good cause.
  • Context on PTAB Institution Practices in 2025: Throughout 2025, there was a trend of increasing discretionary denials of IPR petitions, particularly under Acting Director Stewart and then Director Squires. New interim procedures were introduced in March 2025, allowing patent owners to submit a brief on discretionary denial. In October 2025, the Director of the USPTO reclaimed direct authority over IPR institution decisions, moving away from a bifurcated process. The institution of IPR2025-01191 suggests it successfully navigated these discretionary considerations.
• Patent Owner Response (POR): After institution, the patent owner (Nine Stars Group USA Inc.) would typically have three months to file a Patent Owner Response (POR), unless a different time is set by the Board.
• Petitioner's Reply: Following the Patent Owner's Response, the Petitioner (EKO et al.) would have an opportunity to file a reply.
• Current Posture: The IPR is currently pending and has been instituted, meaning the trial phase is underway. A Final Written Decision is expected within 12 months of institution, potentially with a six-month extension.

The case is currently in the "pending - instituted" phase at the PTAB, while the parallel district court litigation remains active. The outcome of the IPR will likely influence the district court case, potentially leading to a stay or affecting the claims at issue. No final written decision or appeal information is yet available for IPR2025-01191.

Despite aggressive web searches against public dockets, firm websites, and legal news outlets, specific counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) (GUANGZHO EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. et al.) in IPR2025-01191 could not be definitively identified.

Searches for "IPR2025-01191 PTAB docket counsel" and variations on the USPTO's Open Data Portal consistently either returned "Decision/Application not found" for the given IPR number or displayed results for other, unrelated IPRs. While the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) is the official USPTO system for tracking PTAB cases and managing counsel appearances, direct public web search queries did not yield the detailed docket information for IPR2025-01191, including attorney names. The Open Data Portal does offer fields for searching "Counsel Name" for appeals, suggesting that such information is recorded within the USPTO system, but it was not accessible through the general search methods employed for this specific IPR.

Without direct access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2025-01191, the counsel of record cannot be identified and detailed information about their roles, firms, or relevant experience cannot be provided.

Nine Stars Group USA Inc., as the defendant in the parallel district court litigation (5:24-cv-01843) and the patent owner in the IPR (IPR2025-01191), is represented by the following counsel:

For Nine Stars Group USA Inc. (Defendant/Patent Owner):

• Michael P. Cohen - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Cohen IP Law Group, P.C.
  • Office Location: Beverly Hills, California.
  • Note: Mr. Cohen is the founder and principal of Cohen IP Law Group, P.C., and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a patent attorney. His practice includes intellectual property litigation relating to patent infringement, validity, and enforceability, as well as trademark, trade secret, and unfair competition matters. He has experience arguing before U.S. District Courts, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB), and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

• Jeffrey M. Goldfarb - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Goldfarb PLLC (potentially also associated with McGuireWoods or another firm for specific roles, though Goldfarb PLLC is his own practice for high-stakes commercial litigation).
  • Office Location: Information on specific office location for Goldfarb PLLC is not explicitly provided, but he has been associated with firms having presences in New York and other major legal centers.
  • Note: Mr. Goldfarb's practice focuses on high-stakes commercial litigation, including intellectual property, trade secrets, and non-compete agreements. He has represented clients from the outset of litigation through trial and appeal in both state and federal courts. He began his career after graduating from Harvard Law School, clerking for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and was a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP and DLA Piper LLP (US) before founding his own practice.