DCT

2:24-cv-00188

Cozy Comfort Co LLC v. Top Brands LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00188, D. Ariz., 02/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona because Defendants have advertised products to and derived revenue from citizens within the district, and have engaged in systematic and continuous business contacts with the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wearable blankets, sold under the "Tirrinia" and "Catalonia" brand names, infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "THE COMFY" product.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the consumer product category of wearable blankets, which are garments designed to combine the features of an oversized hooded sweatshirt with the warmth and coverage of a blanket.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties have been involved in separate, ongoing litigation in the same district since February 2020 concerning other intellectual property rights. Plaintiff asserts this history placed Defendants on notice of Plaintiff’s rights prior to the alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-04-21 Defendant Flying Star LLC organized.
2017-07-28 Defendants Top Brand LLC and E Star LLC organized.
2017-09-13 ’458 Patent Priority Date (based on filing of App. No. 29/617,421).
2017-12-03 Plaintiff's product featured on the television show Shark Tank.
2020-02-XX Prior litigation between the parties commenced.
2022-11-15 U.S. Patent No. D969,458 issues.
2024-02-15 Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement filed.

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D969,458, titled "Whole body blanket," issued November 15, 2022.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The complaint characterizes the commercial embodiment of the patented design, "THE COMFY," as a "unique oversized blanket" with features like a hood, cuffs, and a large front pocket, intended to provide comfort and warmth while covering most of the user's body (Compl. ¶24).
    • The Patented Solution: The '458 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a wearable blanket (D’458 Patent, Claim). The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, consists of the visual characteristics of the article, including its overall oversized pullover configuration, the particular proportions and shape of its large hood, wide body, and tapered sleeves, and the shape and placement of its large front pocket (D’458 Patent, FIGS. 1-16). The patent's description clarifies that features shown in broken lines, such as stitching or hems, do not form part of the claimed design (D’458 Patent, p. 5, DESCRIPTION).
    • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product embodying the design established Plaintiff as an "innovator and leader in the wearable blankets market" and became the "best-selling wearable blanket in the United States" (Compl. ¶¶34, 37).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described" (D’458 Patent, Claim).
    • The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the solid lines in the drawings. The key visual features that constitute the overall claimed design include:
      • An overall oversized, pullover garment configuration.
      • A large, voluminous hood.
      • Wide, long sleeves that taper toward the ends.
      • A wide, elongated body portion.
      • A large, centrally-located front pocket.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are wearable blankets marketed and sold as the "Tirrinia ‘Blanket Hoodie’" and the "Catalonia ‘Hoodie Blanket’" (Compl. ¶65).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substantially identical copies" of Plaintiff's THE COMFY product and directly replicate its intellectual property (Compl. ¶¶65, 75). It further alleges that although sold under different brand names, the Tirrinia and Catalonia products are "virtually identical" to each other and are sold through various online marketplaces, including Amazon, Walmart, and Sears (Compl. ¶¶53, 65).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on a visual comparison between the patented design and the accused products. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint alleges that the accused Tirrinia and Catalonia products are designed in a way that bears "substantial similarity to the construction and design" of Plaintiff's products and that any differences in appearance are "inconsequential" (Compl. ¶¶51, 66). To support this, the complaint presents Figure 3 of the '458 Patent to illustrate the claimed ornamental design (Compl. p. 12, ¶67). The complaint then provides photographs of the accused "Tirrinia" and "Catalonia" products laid flat, which display their overall shape, hood, sleeves, and front pocket for comparison (Compl. p. 13, ¶67). The core of the infringement allegation is that the overall visual impression of the accused products is substantially the same as that of the claimed design (Compl. ¶¶71-72, 78).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue will be the scope of the '458 Patent's design in light of the prior art. The degree of similarity required for a finding of infringement will depend on how novel the patented design is when compared to earlier wearable blanket or oversized hoodie designs.
    • Technical Questions: The dispute is not over technical operation but over ornamental appearance. The key question for the fact-finder will be whether the specific visual elements of the accused products—their proportions, pocket shape and placement, hood size, and sleeve taper—combine to create an overall visual impression that is substantially the same as the claimed design.

V. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶79). These allegations appear to be primarily based on the theory that the various corporate and individual defendants acted in concert and as alter egos of one another to "induce[], direct[], and control[]" the infringing activities (Compl. ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was and continues to be "knowing, intentional and willful" (Compl. ¶80). This allegation is based on two grounds: first, that Defendants engaged in "willful and deliberate copying" of Plaintiff's product design (Compl. ¶1, ¶40); and second, that Defendants have been on notice of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights since at least February 2020 due to prior and ongoing litigation between the same parties (Compl. ¶¶68-70).

VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this case may turn on the answers to several key questions:

  • A primary issue will be one of visual similarity: Will an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art for wearable garments, find the overall ornamental design of the accused "Catalonia" and "Tirrinia" products to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '458 Patent?
  • A second critical question will relate to culpability and damages: Given the allegation that the parties were already engaged in litigation when the infringing acts occurred, did Defendants' conduct rise to the level of willful infringement, which could expose them to enhanced damages and an award of their profits under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 289?
  • Finally, the case raises a question of corporate liability: Has the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to persuade the court to pierce the corporate veil and find that the various defendant entities and individuals operated as a single enterprise, making them all jointly and severally liable for the alleged infringement?