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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Nine Stars Group USA Inc. v. Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. counsel", "5:24-cv-01843 counsel of record", "Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. counsel Central District of California", "Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. patent litigation attorneys", "attorneys for Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. in 5:24-cv-01843"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in the specified patent infringement case. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney representing Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd.

I will use web searches focusing on the case number, party names, and the court to identify counsel from docket entries or legal news.

Here's my plan:

1. Search for "Nine Stars Group USA Inc. v. Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. counsel" or "5:24-cv-01843 counsel of record" to find general information about legal representation.
2. Look for specific docket entries (e.g., appearance forms, initial pleadings) that list attorneys for the defendant.
3. Once names are identified, search for those attorneys to determine their firm, office location, and relevant experience.The defendant, Guangzhou EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd., is represented by:

• Aaron T. Borrowman
  • Role: Attorney of Record (specific role like lead counsel is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but he is listed in connection with the case).
  • Firm: YK Law LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but YK Law LLP has offices in various locations, including California. (Further search would be needed to pinpoint the specific office for this case).
  • Experience: Aaron T. Borrowman is a patent attorney with experience in practice areas including transport, e-commerce, semiconductors, optics, and computer architecture and software. He has experience in District Court cases.

The provided information directly links Aaron T. Borrowman to the case 5:24-CV-01843 as an attorney. Further search would be required to identify other attorneys of record for the defendant and their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) and office locations. The current search results do not definitively specify if there are other attorneys or their specific roles beyond the general listing.