Chengdu Ruihan v. Aaron Chien & Jasco Products: Astronaut LED Projector IP Dispute Settles
Three Chinese trading companies jointly pursued four patents — three design registrations and one utility patent — against individual defendants and Jasco Products Company over competing astronaut-themed LED star projector products. Filed in California’s Central District, the declaratory judgment action concluded in a full settlement after 429 days, with the parties directed to finalise dismissal by September 2025.
Multi-party astronaut LED projector dispute reaches full settlement in C.D. Cal.
Three Chinese entities — Chengdu Ruihan Yongtai Trading Co., Ltd., Guigang Tianshi Trading Co., Ltd., and Zhengzhou Chonger Network Technology Co., Ltd. — filed suit on 27 May 2024 in the Central District of California against four defendants: individuals Aaron Chien, Hsin-Yi Wang, and Te-Ju Chien, and consumer electronics company Jasco Products Company, LLC. The plaintiffs asserted four patents covering astronaut-themed LED star projector products, including design patents USD0965848S, USD0969391S, and USD0977177S, alongside utility patent US9719654B2. The accused products included the SFOUR Astronaut LED and the Mooyran Astronaut LED lines.
The case was framed as a declaratory judgment action, suggesting the defendants may have sought clarity on non-infringement or patent validity before or after receiving enforcement correspondence. On 30 July 2025, Judge Cynthia Valenzuela placed the action in inactive status following the parties’ joint Notice of Settlement, indicating that all claims had been resolved in their entirety and that a written agreement was being finalised. The parties were ordered to file a stipulation for dismissal or a motion to reopen by 12 September 2025, with the action to be deemed dismissed if no filing was made.
At 429 days, the resolution timeline is broadly consistent with multi-party IP proceedings in the Central District of California, though the involvement of three plaintiff entities and four defendants — including both individuals and a named consumer products company — likely added coordination complexity. The public record does not disclose financial terms, royalty arrangements, or whether any licensing relationship was established. The settlement’s scope covering all claims suggests a comprehensive resolution, but whether the patents’ commercial value was traded for a lump sum or ongoing licence remains unknown.
Filing to Case Settled in 429 days
429 days from filing to settlement — consistent with complex multi-party IP disputes in C.D. Cal.
Full settlement reached: what the resolution means for both sides
Settled ‘in its entirety’ — all claims resolved by agreement
Judge Valenzuela’s 30 July 2025 order confirms the parties filed a Notice of Settlement covering all claims. A formal stipulation for dismissal or judgment was required by 12 September 2025, failing which the action would be deemed dismissed automatically. This mechanism is standard in C.D. Cal. to allow parties time to execute written agreements without maintaining active docket obligations.
Full settlement — all claimsPlaintiffs resolve enforcement action on undisclosed terms
For the three plaintiff trading companies, settlement ends the litigation risk and cost of pursuing four patents across multiple defendants simultaneously. The public record does not specify whether they received monetary compensation, a licence, or agreed product modifications. Settlement before trial preserves the patents’ validity and enforceability — no court ruled adversely on any claim — leaving the IP available for future enforcement against other parties.
Patents remain valid and enforceableJasco and individual defendants exit litigation by agreement
For Jasco Products Company and the individual defendants, settlement avoids the risk of an infringement finding on three design patents and one utility patent. In design patent disputes, damages can be calculated on total profits from an infringing article, which can be commercially severe. Settling preserves business continuity and avoids setting adverse precedent. Terms — including any admissions, design-arounds, or payments — are not publicly disclosed.
No infringement finding on recordAstronaut LED projector design patents signal active IP enforcement
This case suggests the astronaut-themed LED projector market — a high-volume consumer electronics segment on platforms like Amazon — is subject to active design patent enforcement. With three design patents and one utility patent in the portfolio, competitors and retailers sourcing similar products should treat FTO clearance as a standard pre-launch step. The settlement without adverse validity ruling strengthens the plaintiff portfolio’s posture for future actions.
Active design patent enforcement spaceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Chengdu Ruihan Yongtai Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese consumer electronics trading companies — co-holders of astronaut LED star projector design and utility patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Guigang Tianshi Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Zhengzhou Chonger Network Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Aaron Chien | Individual | Individual defendants Aaron Chien, Hsin-Yi Wang, Te-Ju Chien, and Jasco Products Company, LLC — consumer electronics distributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Hsin-Yi Wang | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Te-Ju Chien | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Jasco Products Company, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Xinlin Morrow | Attorney | Counsel for Chengdu Ruihan Yongtai Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zhener Low | Attorney | Counsel for Chengdu Ruihan Yongtai Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morrow Ni LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chengdu Ruihan Yongtai Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | R. David Donoghue | Attorney | Counsel for Aaron ChienSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wendy Qiu | Attorney | Counsel for Aaron ChienSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Holland & Knight, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Aaron ChienSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a standard inactive-status mechanism used in C.D. Cal. when parties notify the court of a global settlement before a formal dismissal stipulation is executed. The phrase ‘settled in its entirety’ is significant: it indicates all claims across all plaintiffs and all defendants were resolved in a single agreement, leaving no residual counterclaims or severed issues. No merits determination was made on infringement or validity of any of the four asserted patents. The court’s retention of jurisdiction pending formal dismissal is procedural, preserving its ability to enforce settlement terms if the agreement is not executed.
USD0965848S, USD0969391S, USD0977177S & US9719654B2 — Astronaut LED Star Projector IP
The asserted portfolio comprises three U.S. design patents — USD0965848S, USD0969391S, and USD0977177S — covering the ornamental appearance of astronaut-themed LED star projector products, filed under application numbers US29/807820, US29/833953, and US29/833957 respectively. Design patents protect the non-functional visual characteristics of a product, and in a market where product aesthetics drive purchase decisions, they can be highly commercially significant. The fourth patent, US9719654B2 (application US14/503647), is a utility patent directed at functional aspects of the LED projector system, likely encompassing features such as star/nebula projection mechanics, timer control, or remote functionality.
The combination of design and utility protection over astronaut LED projectors reflects a layered IP strategy that is increasingly common among Chinese OEM and trading companies seeking to establish enforceable rights in U.S. consumer electronics markets. Design patents in this segment are particularly potent because the astronaut form factor is itself the marketing hook — consumers select the product largely on visual appeal. With multiple design registrations covering design variants, the portfolio creates a fence around the product family. Any competitor offering a visually similar astronaut projector should treat these registrations as a priority FTO target before U.S. market entry.
Should your team run an FTO against USD0965848S and the related astronaut LED projector portfolio?
If your organisation designs, sources, imports, or distributes LED star projector products — particularly astronaut-themed form factors — this four-patent portfolio warrants formal FTO clearance. The three design patents cover ornamental appearance, meaning even functional differences in your product may not be a defence if the overall visual impression is similar to the registered design. Retailers and Amazon sellers stocking third-party astronaut projector SKUs face direct infringement exposure, as Jasco’s involvement in this case illustrates.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables your team to map the full claim scope of USD0965848S, USD0969391S, USD0977177S, and US9719654B2 against your product specifications in minutes, not weeks. Eureka surfaces design patent family members, continuation applications, and related utility filings that may extend the enforcement perimeter beyond the four patents asserted here. For product and sourcing teams, running an automated FTO before finalising a new LED projector SKU is faster and lower-cost than defending a C.D. Cal. district court action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0965848S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar astronaut LED projector and consumer electronics design patent cases
Explore comparable design and utility patent enforcement actions in the consumer LED projector and decorative lighting segment litigated in C.D. Cal. and related U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the consumer LED projector IP landscape
Coordinated enforcement of design and utility patents over LED star projectors reflects a broader strategy by Chinese IP holders in the U.S. market.
Design patent damages risk is acute in consumer LED projector segment
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent infringement can expose defendants to total profits from the accused article — not apportioned damages. For volume consumer products like LED star projectors sold through e-commerce, this exposure can be disproportionate. Defendants settling early, as here, is consistent with managing that risk before discovery reveals full sales figures.
Multi-plaintiff filing structures amplify enforcement leverage
The joinder of three Chinese trading companies as co-plaintiffs, each potentially holding or licensing different patents in the portfolio, is a filing structure that concentrates enforcement resources and signals coordinated IP strategy. Companies sourcing competing astronaut LED products should audit their supply chain against all four asserted patents, not just the most visible design registration.
Chengdu v Aaron — key questions answered
Four patents were asserted: design patents USD0965848S, USD0969391S, and USD0977177S covering the ornamental appearance of astronaut-themed LED star projectors, and utility patent US9719654B2 covering functional aspects of the LED projector system. The accused products included the SFOUR Astronaut LED and the Mooyran Astronaut LED.
The case was filed under declaratory judgment jurisdiction, which typically requires a pre-existing actual controversy — most commonly triggered by a cease-and-desist letter or licensing demand from the patent holder. This suggests pre-litigation correspondence likely occurred between the parties before the complaint was filed in May 2024, though the public record does not confirm this.
On 30 July 2025, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement indicating the case had settled in its entirety. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela placed the action in inactive status and directed the parties to file a dismissal stipulation by 12 September 2025. The financial terms, any licensing arrangement, or product modifications agreed upon are not publicly disclosed in the court record.
Jasco Products Company, LLC was named as one of four defendants alongside individuals Aaron Chien, Hsin-Yi Wang, and Te-Ju Chien. Jasco is a U.S. consumer electronics company, and its inclusion as a defendant alongside individuals suggests it may have distributed or sold the accused astronaut LED projector products in the U.S. market. The case settled before any liability finding was made.
Yes. Because the case settled before any merits determination, no court ruled adversely on the validity or enforceability of USD0965848S, USD0969391S, USD0977177S, or US9719654B2. The patents remain active and enforceable, and the plaintiff entities retain the ability to assert them against other parties in future proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.