DCT
2:21-cv-00597
Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Co LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Top Brand LLC, et al. (California, Illinois)
- Defendant: Cozy Comfort Company LLC, et al. (Arizona)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Osborn Maledon, P.A.
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00597, D. Ariz., 10/11/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of Arizona because the Defendants reside in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their wearable blanket and hooded sweatshirt products do not infringe, and that Defendants' five utility and design patents related to oversized wearable garments are invalid and/or unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the apparel and textile space, specifically concerning oversized, hooded, wearable blankets that combine the features of a blanket and a sweatshirt.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by Defendants' repeated infringement complaints to online retailer Amazon.com, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings. Plaintiffs allege they provided Defendants with detailed non-infringement arguments that were ignored. The complaint also raises allegations of inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit, primarily based on an alleged failure to disclose material prior art and on-sale bar activities to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-13 | Priority Date for '431, '788, '237, and '380 Patents |
| 2017-09-13 | Application for '788 Design Patent filed |
| 2018-04-30 | Priority Date for '416 Patent |
| 2018-09-13 | '502 Utility Application filed by Defendants |
| 2019-06-05 | '788 Patent Notice of Allowance issued |
| 2019-09-17 | U.S. Design Patent D859,788 Issued |
| 2019-09-24 | U.S. Patent 10,420,431 Issued |
| 2019-11-XX | Cozy Comfort sends takedown notices to Amazon (Early Nov) |
| 2019-11-13 | Top Brand sends non-infringement letter to Cozy Comfort |
| 2020-01-14 | Amazon issues takedown notice regarding '431 Patent |
| 2020-04-11 | Application for '380 Design Patent filed |
| 2020-06-09 | U.S. Design Patent D886,416 Issued |
| 2020-12-01 | U.S. Design Patent D903,237 Issued |
| 2020-12-22 | U.S. Design Patent D905,380 Issued |
| 2021-10-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,420,431 - "OVERGARMENT WITH AN ELEVATED MARSUPIAL POCKET," issued September 24, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve the problem that conventional blankets are not portable when a person needs to move, while layered clothing can be constrictive and uncomfortable for staying warm indoors ('431 Patent, col. 1:19-41). The background notes the need for an "improved, cozy, comfortable blanket" that is "practically portable when worn on the body" ('431 Patent, col. 1:39-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an oversized wearable garment constructed from two plies of soft fabric, featuring a torso, a hood, and opposed sleeves ('431 Patent, Abstract). Its solution is embodied in its unique proportions, including very large sleeve openings and a "marsupial pocket" that is "elevated" on the torso. This specific placement is described as allowing a wearer in a fetal position to easily access the pocket, which would be positioned in front of the knees rather than at the shins or feet ('431 Patent, col. 6:17-26).
- Technical Importance: The garment's specific dimensional relationships between the body, sleeves, and pocket are presented as creating a novel article that uniquely combines the full-body coverage of a blanket with the utility of a wearable garment ('431 Patent, col. 6:35-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint challenges all claims of the '431 patent (Compl. ¶413). The asserted independent claims are 1, 6, and 11.
- Independent Claim 1:
- a single body constructed from two soft, woven fabric plies;
- a torso in the body, the torso having a neck opening;
- opposed sleeves attached to the torso at sleeve openings;
- a marsupial pocket having a top and opposed bottom, wherein the top of the pocket is above the bottom of each sleeve and the bottom of the pocket is below the bottom of each sleeve;
- wherein the marsupial pocket has a height which is 1.2 times the distance between the neck opening and the top of the marsupial pocket.
- Independent Claim 6 is similar but more specifically defines the body as having "inner and outer plies" and the sleeves as "extending from the torso."
- Independent Claim 11 adds further dimensional limitations, requiring the torso width to be 7.4 times the neck diameter and the sleeve length to be five times the neck diameter, among other ratios.
U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 - "ENLARGED OVER-GARMENT WITH AN ELEVATED MARSUPIAL POCKET," issued September 17, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While design patents do not contain a problem-solution statement, the related '431 utility patent describes a need for a comfortable, wearable alternative to traditional blankets and layered clothing ('431 Patent, col. 1:19-41).
- The Patented Solution: The '788 patent claims the ornamental design for an oversized garment as depicted in the patent's figures ('788 Patent, Figs. 1-10). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, is characterized by its overall shape, including a large, puffy, circular hood opening; an inwardly tapering body; a hemline that is substantially longer in the back; and a distinctively shaped, elevated front pocket that is relatively narrow and tall (Compl. ¶78-83).
- Technical Importance: This design established a distinctive overall visual appearance for a product in the emerging "wearable blanket" market category.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described ('788 Patent, CLAIM; Compl. ¶153).
- The key ornamental features that constitute the claimed design include the specific shape, configuration, and placement of the hood, sleeves, body, hemline, and pocket, as illustrated in the patent figures.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D905,380
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D905,380, "WHOLE BODY BLANKET," issued December 22, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a "whole body blanket." The figures illustrate an oversized, hooded garment, representing a variation on the design theme of the other patents-in-suit. The complaint suggests this patent was prosecuted with the intent of capturing the designs of Plaintiffs' products (Compl. ¶215).
- Asserted Claims: A single claim for the "ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described" ('380 Patent, CLAIM).
- Accused Features: The complaint broadly situates the '380 patent within the larger dispute, alleging that Defendants have asserted it against various brands and that their own "THE COMFY" product is purportedly covered by the design (Compl. ¶180, 340).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D886,416
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D886,416, "OVER-GARMENT WITH A MARSUPIAL POCKET," issued June 9, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for an over-garment that is substantially longer than the design in the '788 patent, with a hemline that terminates at the ankle (Compl. ¶325).
- Asserted Claims: A single claim for the "ornamental design for an over-garment with a marsupial pocket, as shown and described" ('416 Patent, CLAIM).
- Accused Features: Plaintiffs' non-infringement argument focuses on the hemline, alleging their products terminate above the knee and therefore do not have the same overall appearance as the claimed ankle-length design (Compl. ¶325, 329).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D903,237
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D903,237, "OVER-GARMENT WITH AN ELEVATED MARSUPIAL POCKET," issued December 1, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims another ornamental design for an oversized, hooded garment. As a continuation-in-part of earlier applications, it protects a design variation within the same product family (Compl. ¶242).
- Asserted Claims: A single claim for the "ornamental design for an over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as shown and described" ('237 Patent, CLAIM).
- Accused Features: The complaint includes the '237 patent in its general allegations that Defendants are misusing their patent portfolio to interfere with Plaintiffs' sales (Compl. ¶124, 239).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The products for which Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement are primarily the "Tirrinia® Hoodie" and the "Catalonia Wearable Fleece Blanket," as well as other "hooded sweatshirts" and "wearable blankets" (Compl. ¶25, 66, 94).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Tirrinia® Hoodie is described as a large sweatshirt sold in various colors and sizes (Compl. ¶66-67). The complaint highlights its allegedly non-infringing design features, including an outward taper at the hemline, a wide rectangular pocket covering approximately two-thirds of the torso, a horizontal hemline, and a tear-drop shaped hood opening (Compl. ¶78-83). A visual provided in the complaint contrasts the pocket width of the Tirrinia® Hoodie with that of the '788 patent design (Compl. ¶79).
- The Catalonia Wearable Fleece Blanket is alleged to be a wearable blanket with sleeves and foot pockets that lacks a hood and a marsupial pocket entirely (Compl. ¶94, 96).
- Plaintiffs allege their products compete directly with Defendants' products for the same customers, and that Defendants' infringement accusations to Amazon have resulted in Plaintiffs' products being delisted from the platform (Compl. ¶58, 75).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'431 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (of Plaintiffs' Products) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a marsupial pocket... wherein the marsupial pocket has a height between its top and bottom which is 1.2 times the distance between the neck opening and the top of the marsupial pocket. | The complaint alleges that no product offered for sale by Plaintiffs includes a marsupial pocket with this specific dimensional ratio. | ¶413 | col. 11:21-25 |
| a marsupial pocket | The complaint alleges that certain targeted products, such as the Catalonia Wearable Fleece Blanket, have "no marsupial pocket" at all. | ¶96, 130 | col. 11:18-25 |
'788 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element ('788 Patent Design Feature) | Alleged Distinguishing Feature (Tirrinia® Hoodie) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| An inwardly tapering hemline. | The product allegedly has an outward taper at the hemline. | ¶78 |
| A narrow, tall, and substantially square pocket covering approx. 1/3 of the torso width. | The product allegedly has an enlarged, wide, rectangular pocket covering approx. 2/3 of the torso width. A visual comparison is provided. | ¶79-80 |
| A substantially angled hemline that is significantly longer in the back. | The product allegedly has a generally horizontal hemline. | ¶82 |
| A substantially circular and puffy hood opening. | The product allegedly has an elongated, tear-drop shaped, and thin hood opening. | ¶83 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the '431 patent, a threshold question is whether certain accused products (e.g., the Catalonia blanket) possess a "marsupial pocket" at all, as required by every claim (Compl. ¶96). For the '788 design patent, a key question is whether the "ordinary observer," viewing the design as a whole, would find the Tirrinia® Hoodie's overall appearance to be substantially the same as the claimed design, despite the articulated differences in pocket, hem, and hood shape (Compl. ¶85-89).
- Technical Questions: The primary technical question for the '431 patent is one of measurement and literal compliance. Does any accused product meet the precise ratio where the pocket height is "1.2 times the distance between the neck opening and the top of the marsupial pocket" ('431 Patent, col. 11:21-25)? The complaint alleges that the term "approximately" was removed from this limitation during prosecution, suggesting little room for deviation (Compl. ¶303).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '431 Patent:
- The Term: "marsupial pocket"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in all 16 claims of the '431 patent. Its construction is critical because Plaintiffs allege that some of their targeted products lack this feature entirely (Compl. ¶96), which would be a complete defense to infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning will determine the threshold applicability of the patent to a wide range of wearable blanket products.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone definition of "marsupial pocket," which could support adopting a broad, plain, and ordinary meaning (e.g., any pouch-like pocket on the front of a garment).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the marsupial pocket in a specific functional context, noting its "elevated position" is a key feature that distinguishes it from conventional hoodies and allows a user in a fetal position to comfortably access it ('431 Patent, col. 5:16-26). A party could argue that to be a "marsupial pocket" as claimed in this patent, the pocket must be "elevated" in the manner described, specifically with its top located above the bottom of the sleeve openings ('431 Patent, col. 11:19-21).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement "directly, indirectly, or contributorily" (Compl. ¶151). However, the factual allegations focus on direct non-infringement by comparing Plaintiffs' products to the patent claims. The complaint does not set forth a factual basis for why indirect infringement would be at issue.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement by Plaintiffs. Instead, it alleges that Defendants' enforcement actions have been willful and egregious, forming the basis for an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶149-150). It also alleges Defendants engaged in willful false marking by advertising products with patent numbers that allegedly do not cover the products, with the intent to deceive the public (Compl. ¶311, 293-295). For example, it alleges Defendants knew their own "Comfy Original" product did not meet the 1.2x ratio of the '431 patent claims but marked it with that patent number anyway (Compl. ¶310-311).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question for the '431 utility patent will be one of literal compliance: Do any of Plaintiffs' products meet the precise numerical limitation, present in every claim, requiring the marsupial pocket's height to be "1.2 times" the distance from the neck opening to the pocket's top, particularly where the qualifier "approximately" was surrendered during prosecution?
- For the asserted design patents, the core issue will be one of holistic comparison: Are the alleged differences in Plaintiffs' products—especially the pocket proportions, hemline shape, and hood configuration—sufficient to create a different overall visual impression, such that an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would not be deceived into purchasing one thinking it was the other?
- A central question of enforceability underpins the entire case: Did the Defendants breach their duty of candor to the USPTO by allegedly failing to disclose material on-sale bar information and prior art references during prosecution, and does their alleged practice of marking their own products with patent numbers that do not cover them rise to the level of false marking with intent to deceive the public?