DCT
2:20-cv-00060
Neck Hammock Inc v. Soothehammock LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Neck Hammock, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Soothehammock, LLC (Arizona) and Sebastian Ghiorghiu (Arizona)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Osborn Maledon, P.A.; Workman | Nydegger
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00060, D. Ariz., 01/09/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona because the Defendants reside in the district and a substantial portion of the alleged infringing conduct occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SootheHammock product infringes utility and design patents covering a portable cervical traction device.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to portable, at-home medical devices designed to provide cervical traction for therapeutic neck pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff's product was launched via a successful crowdfunding campaign, which was followed by the market entry of alleged "knock-off products," compelling the Plaintiff to expedite its intellectual property protections.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-08-12 | U.S. Patent No. 10,307,284 Priority Date |
| 2017-05-22 | U.S. Design Patent Nos. D824,035, D845,492, D845,494 Priority Date |
| 2017-10-24 | Plaintiff's Kickstarter Campaign Launch |
| 2018-07-24 | U.S. Design Patent No. D824,035 Issue Date |
| 2019-04-09 | U.S. Design Patent No. D845,492 Issue Date |
| 2019-04-09 | U.S. Design Patent No. D845,494 Issue Date |
| 2019-06-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,307,284 Issue Date |
| 2020-01-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,307,284 - "Portable Traction Device with Sling" (issued Jun. 4, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art at-home cervical traction devices as often being "complex, cumbersome, bulky, costly and potentially injurious" (’284 Patent, col. 1:39-41). It notes that some devices use uncomfortable headgear with chin straps that can stress the jaw, while others use clamps that can damage furniture (’284 Patent, col. 1:42-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable traction device featuring a sling assembly designed to cradle the user's head, flexible elastic tethers, and an anchor that can be secured to an object like a door. The sling is specifically designed to "cradle and engage an occipital bone portion of a user's head" using friction, which is intended to obviate the need for a chin strap or other complex headgear (’284 Patent, col. 2:1-5; col. 4:20-25).
- Technical Importance: The described invention sought to provide an at-home cervical traction method that was more portable, less damaging to its surroundings, and more comfortable for the user than existing options (’284 Patent, col. 1:54-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A "sling assembly" comprising a sling of flexible material with specific edges.
- The sling must be "elongated and sized to cradle and engage an occipital bone portion" of a user's head via a "frictional portion".
- A "base cushion" attached to the sling.
- A "first side cushion" and a "second side cushion" disposed on the sling.
- A "pair of side attachments" extending from the sides of the sling.
- "flexible elastic tethers" that selectively attach to the side attachments.
- An "anchor" operable to attach to the tethers and an anchoring object, where the anchor itself comprises an "anchor tab", an "anchor connector", and an "anchor strap".
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’284 Patent, col. 7:1-37; Compl. ¶54).
U.S. Design Patent No. D824,035 - "Portable Traction Device" (issued Jul. 24, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. This patent seeks to protect the novel aesthetic design of the traction device.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a portable traction device as illustrated in the patent's figures (’D035 Patent, Claim). The claimed design features a distinct overall shape, including the contours of the sling, the placement and shape of the three cushions, and the appearance of the side attachment points, as shown in views like FIG. 3 (’D035 Patent, FIG. 3).
- Technical Importance: The purpose of the design patent is to protect the non-functional, aesthetic appearance of the product, which can serve as a key market differentiator and source identifier.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the 'D035 Patent (Compl. ¶63).
- The claim is for "The ornamental design for a portable traction device, as shown and described" (’D035 Patent, Claim).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D845,492
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D845,492, "Portable Traction Device," issued Apr. 9, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design for a portable traction device, which appears substantially similar to the design in the ’D035 Patent but with different broken-line conventions for stitching.
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim for the ornamental design "as shown and described" (’D492 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶72).
- Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of the SootheHammock product is alleged to be the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶72).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D845,494
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D845,494, "Portable Traction Device," issued Apr. 9, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent protects an ornamental design for a portable traction device. The illustrated design appears to be a different embodiment or variation from the 'D035 and 'D492 patents, with different cushion shapes and proportions.
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim for the ornamental design "as shown and described" (’D494 Patent, Claim; Compl. ¶81).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the overall visual appearance of the SootheHammock product is the same as this patented design (Compl. ¶81).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "SootheHammock" device and related products sold by Defendants on eCommerce platforms, including the website soothehammock.com (Compl. ¶¶8, 12, 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused Product as a portable cervical traction device that functions by cradling a user's head in a sling, which is connected via straps to an anchor point to create tension (Compl. ¶¶47-53). A photograph provided in the complaint shows the accused SootheHammock product laid flat, displaying its sling, cushions, and side attachments (Compl. p. 13). The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "knock-off" that was marketed after the success of Plaintiff's crowdfunding campaigns (Compl. ¶¶10, 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'284 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a sling comprising flexible material and having a first side, a second side opposite the first side, a superior edge, and an inferior edge | The Accused Product includes a sling made of flexible material with a first side, second side, superior edge, and inferior edge. | ¶47 | col. 7:4-8 |
| the sling being elongated and sized to cradle and engage an occipital bone portion of a user's head via at least a frictional portion of the sling | The Accused Product’s sling is alleged to be elongated and sized to cradle the user's occipital bone, using a frictional portion to engage the head. | ¶48 | col. 7:8-15 |
| a base cushion attached to the sling between the superior edge and the inferior edge and approximately centered between the first and second sides of the sling | The Accused Product includes a base cushion allegedly attached and centered on the sling. | ¶49 | col. 7:16-20 |
| a first side cushion disposed between the base cushion and the first side of the sling; and a second side cushion disposed between the base cushion and the second side of the sling | The Accused Product includes first and second side cushions positioned relative to the base cushion and the sides of the sling. | ¶50 | col. 7:21-25 |
| a pair of side attachments comprising a first side attachment extending from the first side of the sling and a second side attachment extending from the second side of the sling | The Accused Product has a pair of attachments extending from its sides. | ¶51 | col. 7:26-29 |
| flexible elastic tethers operable to selectively attach to the pair of side attachments via first ends of the flexible elastic tethers | The Accused Product includes flexible elastic tethers that attach to the side attachments. | ¶52 | col. 7:30-33 |
| an anchor operable to selectively attach to the sling and to an anchoring object, wherein the anchor comprises: an anchor tab; an anchor connector... and an anchor strap... | The complaint alleges the Accused Product includes an anchor with an anchor tab, connector, and strap. An exploded-view diagram from the defendant's website is used to identify these components (Compl. p. 17). | ¶53 | col. 7:34-37 |
'D035 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of the Accused Product is "the same as the patented design" such that it would deceive an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art (Compl. ¶63). To support this, the complaint provides a side-by-side comparison, juxtaposing a figure from the 'D035 Patent with a photograph of the Accused Product in use (Compl. p. 18).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the '284 patent will be whether the Accused Product includes every limitation of the asserted claim. The claim recites a specific three-part cushioning system ("base cushion", "first side cushion", "second side cushion") and a three-part anchor ("anchor tab", "anchor connector", "anchor strap"). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the components of the SootheHammock device can be mapped to each of these distinct claimed elements.
- Technical Questions: For the '284 patent, a factual question is whether the accused sling's material and design create a "frictional portion" that functions to "engage an occipital bone portion" in the manner required by the claim. For the design patents, the dispute will center on the "ordinary observer" test, raising the question of whether alleged similarities in the overall visual appearance outweigh any minor differences between the products, when viewed in light of prior art traction devices.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "frictional portion" (’284 Patent, cl. 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purported improvement over prior art requiring chin straps or other headgear. Its construction will determine the type and degree of engagement required between the sling and the user's head for a finding of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not quantify the level of friction, requiring only "at least a frictional portion." This may support an argument that any part of the sling that provides non-zero friction to resist slipping meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that this feature, in combination with the vertical force component, "obviate[s] need for a chin strap" and prevents the sling from sliding out "during normal use" (’284 Patent, col. 4:20-29). A party could argue this functional language implies a specific, higher level of frictional engagement than the plain words might suggest.
The Term: "anchor" comprising an "anchor tab", "anchor connector", and "anchor strap" (’284 Patent, cl. 1)
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a multi-component anchor. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused device's anchoring mechanism contains these three distinct, claimed sub-elements.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The terms are not explicitly defined, which may support a reading where any three corresponding parts in the accused device meet the limitations, regardless of their specific form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples, such as an anchor tab "sized to fit through the space exposed between the hinged edge of a door" and a D-ring as an anchor connector (’284 Patent, col. 5:56-65; FIG. 7). A party may argue that the claim terms should be construed in light of these specific embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as inducement or contributory infringement, focusing instead on direct infringement by the Defendants for making, using, selling, and offering for sale the Accused Products (Compl. ¶45).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful, asserting that Defendants had "actual notice" of the '284 patent and either had "knowledge of" or were "willfully blind to" the risk of infringing all asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶46, 55, 64, 73, 82).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue for the utility patent will be one of structural and functional correspondence: does the accused SootheHammock product contain every element of the highly detailed asserted claim, including the specific three-part cushioning system and the three-component anchor, or are there material differences in its construction and operation that place it outside the claim's scope?
- For the design patents, the central question will be one of overall visual impression: are the similarities between the accused product and the patented designs, as depicted in the complaint's side-by-side comparisons, so pronounced that they would deceive an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences, when viewed in the context of the prior art, to distinguish the two?