Nine Stars Group USA Inc. v. Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd.

Nine Stars Group USA Inc. (Nine Stars), an operating company specializing in the design, patenting, and manufacturing of smart, touchless, and motion-sensor trash cans and household products, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (EKO Trading). EKO Trading, a Chinese trading company and part of the EKO Group, is also an expert in producing and supplying waste bins and other home and office improvement items globally. The litigation likely centers on EKO's line of waste bins, specifically those incorporating touchless or motion-sensing technology, which directly competes with Nine Stars' patented products in the household goods market. While the specific accused products are not detailed in public search results, the nature of both companies' businesses strongly indicates this focus.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 10,928,796. This patent is titled "Automatic trash can assembly" and generally relates to improvements in touchless waste receptacles. The procedural posture of the case is in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under case number 5:24-cv-01843, with Judge Anne Hwang presiding and Magistrate Judge Steve Kim referred for certain matters. The Central District of California is a prominent venue for intellectual property litigation, frequently ranking among the top districts for patent cases due to the presence of many companies with intellectual property to protect in the region.

This case is notable due to a parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01369, which has been instituted against the asserted patent, US 10,928,796. This IPR challenge, initiated by Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd., indicates a direct challenge to the validity of Nine Stars' patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) alongside the district court litigation. The case represents a competitive dispute between two operating companies in the smart waste management product industry rather than an assertion by a non-practicing entity.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Nine Stars Group USA Inc. v. Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:24-cv-01843, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 28, 2024. The case involves patent 10,928,796.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Nine Stars Group USA Inc. filed the patent infringement lawsuit on August 28, 2024, in the Central District of California.
• Counterclaims: The defendant, Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd., along with other EKO Group entities, has filed counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• As of May 24, 2026, the available information does not specify any substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment. However, the existing case summary from February 2026 indicates the case is "active" and a "status report filed" (not directly found in recent searches, relying on the prompt's existing summary).
• A parallel PTAB IPR proceeding was instituted (see section 7 below), which often leads to motions to stay the district court litigation. No such motion has been found in the current search.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no information available yet regarding any Markman hearing or claim construction outcomes in this case.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been identified in the available search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case is still active, and there is no indication of it having reached trial, a verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• The case remains active as of May 24, 2026.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-01369: Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd., the defendant in the district court case, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01369, challenging patent 10,928,796.
• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted a trial for IPR2025-01369. The institution decision was a "Grant." The specific date of institution is not explicitly stated but the record was updated on November 21, 2025, showing "Trial Instituted" with an "Outcome: Instituted". This IPR proceeding directly affects the litigation by potentially invalidating the asserted patent claims. The PTAB typically issues a final written decision within one year of instituting a trial.

Despite multiple attempts to identify the counsel of record for Nine Stars Group USA Inc. in Nine Stars Group USA Inc. v. Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:24-cv-01843 in the California Central District Court, specific attorney appearances have not been definitively identified through public web searches. Information typically found on PACER, such as notices of appearance or the initial complaint, was not directly accessible via the provided search methods.

General searches for attorneys named Raymond Speer, Christopher Hohn, or Alex Speer, as well as the law firms Klarquist Sparkman LLP and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, yielded information about their patent litigation practices and other cases, but no direct link to their representation of Nine Stars Group USA Inc. in this specific lawsuit.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case could not be identified using the available web search methods.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Let me dig into the docket and the parallel IPR for defendant counsel.

Let me query the PTAB proceedings directly and CourtListener.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Findings and Limitations

Bottom line: I could not definitively identify the counsel of record for Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. from the sources reachable in this search. I am not going to name attorneys I cannot ground in a filing or firm source. Below is what I can confirm, what the negative evidence suggests, and the specific places where the answer is most likely to resolve.

What the record does show

• The only docket snapshot I could retrieve is the Justia docket for 5:24-cv-01843, which carries the note "This docket was last retrieved on September 4, 2024." That snapshot lists only plaintiff-side filings — the complaint (Dkt. 1, with the two exhibits), civil cover sheet (Dkt. 2), notice of interested parties (Dkt. 3), patent report (Dkt. 4), and the summons request (Dkt. 5) — and reflects a single appearance: Michael A. DiNardo on behalf of Nine Stars Group (USA) Inc. (dockets.justia.com docket 5:24-cv-01843).
• That same snapshot does not show an answer, counterclaim, or any notice of appearance for EKO Trading. Because the snapshot was taken only about a week after filing, this is expected and says nothing about whether EKO has since appeared.
• I was unable to pull the current docket sheet from PACER/CourtListener, and searches for the IPR2025-01369 petition's papers (which would normally list petitioner's lead counsel for EKO in the mandatory notices and signature block) returned no usable document for this specific proceeding. The searches surfaced unrelated IPRs and unrelated parties.

What this means, and an important cross-check

There is a tension with the previously generated sections that you should flag:

• The earlier section states that "Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd., along with other EKO Group entities, has filed counterclaims," and separately that the case shows a status report filed as of February 2026. If those representations are accurate, then EKO has appeared through counsel (counterclaims cannot be filed by an unrepresented corporate entity), and the September 4, 2024 docket snapshot is simply stale. That would mean the counsel names exist on the live docket but were not retrievable through the searches available here.
• Alternatively, to the extent those earlier statements about counterclaims were themselves not tightly sourced (the earlier section acknowledges the February 2026 status report was not independently found), it is possible EKO's appearance is later or the litigation posture is thinner than described. I did not find independent confirmation of the counterclaims either.

I could not reconcile this with a primary source, so treat the "counterclaims filed" statement as uncorroborated for purposes of the counsel question.

Why the names were not surfaced

Likely reasons, stated as such rather than as fact:

• The Justia snapshot predates any defense appearance.
• Defendant-side filings in this case may not have been indexed by the free aggregators reached here, and PACER/CourtListener was not accessible in this session.
• EKO is a Chinese entity, so its defense team may be assembled as local C.D. Cal. IP counsel plus pro hac vice counsel (sometimes including PRC-based counsel), which can produce appearances scattered across several filings that are easy to miss in a stale snapshot.

Where to confirm (and what I would expect to find)

1. Live PACER docket for 5:24-cv-01843 — look for the first defendant-side entry (Notice of Appearance, Answer, or Motion for Extension). The signature block will name lead counsel.
2. IPR2025-01369 on PTAB PTACTS — EKO is the petitioner; the petition's Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) name lead and back-up counsel and the firm, and the Section 42.6(e) signature block identifies the filing attorney. This is usually the same firm handling the district court defense and is the single most reliable place to get the name, since the IPR is public even when district filings are not yet indexed.
3. C.D. Cal. Dkt. entry for the Answer/Counterclaims — this will enumerate each appearing attorney individually.

If you can supply a current docket sheet or the IPR2025-01369 filing receipt/mandatory notices, I can extract each attorney's name, role (lead / of counsel / local / pro hac vice), firm, office location, and a note on relevant patent-litigation experience in the format requested. As of now, no such source was reachable, so any specific names I offered would be fabricated — which I will not do.