Hangzhou Xinpeng Seeks Declaratory Judgment Against X-Factory on a Foldable Sunshade Patent After Amazon Takedowns.

The complaint

The case is Hangzhou Xinpeng Chuangyi Technology Co., Ltd. v. Xiao Shi and X-Factory LLC, No. 1:26-cv-13190 (N.D. Ill.), a 10-page complaint filed October 27, 2026, Document 1. The plaintiff is Hangzhou Xinpeng Chuangyi Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese limited company the complaint places in Wanchai, Hong Kong, doing business as Amourfor US and operating an Amazon storefront named Autzom. The defendants are Xiao Shi, an individual the complaint places in Laurel, Maryland, and X-Factory LLC, a Maryland limited liability company at the same Laurel address for which Shi is the registered agent. The complaint says the defendants operate an Amazon storefront under the name AutoTech Park. It demands a jury.

Jurisdiction and venue

The complaint pleads jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, and under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, and 1338(a). It alleges personal jurisdiction because the defendants directed commercial activities toward the district and caused Amourfor property to be restrained there, and venue because a substantial part of that restrained property is in the district.

The patent and claims

U.S. Patent 12,576,697, titled Reinforcement element for sun shades, buckle resistant sun shades, sun shades for vehicles, and method of making same, issued March 17, 2026, to Shi. USPTO assignment records show an assignment from Shi to X-Factory LLC executed June 16, 2026, and recorded June 18, 2026, at Reel/Frame 075007/0387. Count I seeks a declaration of noninfringement of the patent and alleges that Amourfor's sunshades do not include every element recited in each independent claim, pointing to the pocket and reinforcement member each one recites. The independent claims are claims 1, 17, and 20.

U.S. Patent 12,576,697 covers a vehicle sunshade with a foldable shade body of sub panels joined by flexible joints and seams, including a reinforcement member in a pocket that stiffens the shade so that, when extended and installed next to a vehicle window's inner surface, the shade resists buckling inwardly away from that surface. Claim 1 covers that sunshade structure with a filler material and outer lining, a vertically extending pocket adjacent a flexible joint defining a channel that holds the reinforcement member, and a flexible-joint construction in which a seam and an inward indentation form an elongated chamber of filler material, with the seam also securing a lateral side of the pocket. Claim 17 covers a similar sunshade in which the reinforcement member is oriented to appear concave to a viewer of the first major surface when the shade is extended. Claim 20 covers a similar sunshade in which the reinforcement member has an arcuate horizontal cross section.

What the lawsuit is about

The complaint says Amourfor began selling foldable vehicle sunshades in the United States in February 2026 through Amazon, with model-specific dimensions and ASINs. It alleges that on or around May 2026 the defendants, through AutoTech Park, submitted multiple Amazon patent-infringement takedown submissions on the '697 patent, after which Amazon deactivated 12 Amourfor listings for windshield sun shades fitted to Honda, Toyota, Ram, and Ford models, trapping inventory in Amazon warehouses including in the Chicago area, raising storage fees, and putting inventory at risk of destruction under Amazon policy. It alleges Amourfor's shade has no pocket between sub panels, no reinforcement member or equivalent, and no claimed seam, and that after Amourfor sent letters to Amazon and to Shi, the defendants maintained the takedown submissions and the listings remain deactivated.

The counts and relief sought

Count I seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement under 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, alleging an actual controversy from the Amazon takedowns. Count II alleges tortious interference with contract under Illinois law. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants knew or should have known of Amourfor's contract with Amazon to sell on the platform, and it alleges that the defendants interfered with that contract by unjustifiably submitting the takedowns. The prayer asks for a judgment that making, using, offering, selling, or importing Amourfor's foldable sunshades does not infringe the '697 patent; injunctive relief directing withdrawal of the takedown submissions and reinstatement of the listings; damages with prejudgment interest; punitive damages; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and other appropriate relief.

What to watch next

Watch for service returns, the defendants' answer or Rule 12 motion, and any early relief aimed at the Amazon listings.