DCT
2:17-cv-05307
Aoren Endeavors LLC v. Catch 40 Winks LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aoren Endeavors LLC (Hawaii)
- Defendant: Catch 40 Winks, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Holland & Hart LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-05307, C.D. Cal., 07/19/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant was incorporated in this district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s travel neck pillow infringes a patent related to a counterweight pillow and sling system designed for sleeping in a seated position.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns travel pillows that use a sling and the weight of a user's arm(s) as a counterweight to provide lateral support for the head and neck.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the Plaintiff, Aoren, practices the patent-in-suit through its commercialization of a travel pillow called the "Dream Sling." No other significant procedural history is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-15 | ’471 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-08-09 | ’471 Patent Issued |
| 2017-07-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,408,471 - "Counterweight Pillow Sling Sleeping Aid"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,408,471, "Counterweight Pillow Sling Sleeping Aid", issued August 9, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the discomfort and difficulty of sleeping while seated, particularly during travel, where the force of gravity pulls the head down and conventional U-shaped pillows may be inadequate or cause neck stiffness (’471 Patent, col. 1:5-16, col. 2:6-17). The patent also notes that many people prefer to sleep on their side, a position difficult to achieve comfortably in a seat (’471 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a sleeping aid comprising a pillow that rests on one shoulder and a "counterweight sling strap" connected to the pillow that loops across the user's body (’471 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in Figure 5, a user rests their forearm(s) in the sling portion of the strap; the weight of the arms creates a counterweight force that pulls the pillow firmly against the side of the head and neck, providing stable support for sleeping in a side-tilted position (’471 Patent, col. 4:48-59).
- Technical Importance: The design attempts to mechanically replicate the body position and forces of side-sleeping for a person in a seated position, using the user's own arms as a counterweight (’471 Patent, col. 3:12-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- Claim 1 essential elements:
- A pillow configured to be placed on one shoulder to provide support against one side of the person's head and/or neck.
- A sling strap connected to opposite ends of the pillow, configured to be positioned around the shoulder to form a loop, with a lower sling portion designed to stably support at least one forearm and disperse forces across a "non-localized area."
- The pillow and strap are "operable together" such that the weight of the forearm in the sling generates a supportive force on the pillow that is transferred to the user's neck, head, and/or shoulders.
- The complaint's use of "at least Claim 1" suggests the right to assert additional claims may be reserved.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "40 Winks Travel Neck Pillow" (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a travel pillow that supports one side of the head or neck and has a strap connected to opposite ends of the pillow (Compl. ¶12). This strap is described as being positionable around one shoulder to form a loop, with a "lower sling portion" for supporting a forearm and dispersing forces (Compl. ¶12). A photo provided in the complaint shows the accused product, a C-shaped pillow with an attached strap, in its packaging (Compl. ¶11, Ex. 3). The complaint alleges the product operates by using the weight of the forearm to generate a supportive force on the pillow, which is transferred to the user's head and neck (Compl. ¶12). The product is alleged to be in "direct competition" with Plaintiff's own "Dream Sling" product and is offered for sale on e-commerce websites like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’471 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a pillow configured to be placed on one shoulder of the person to provide support against one side of the person's head and/or neck in a direction toward the one shoulder | The accused product supports one side of the head or neck in a direction toward one shoulder. | ¶12 | col. 3:26-30 |
| a sling strap having a length between respective ends thereof, the sling strap being connected to opposite ends of the pillow and configured to be positioned around the one shoulder on front and back sides of the person to form a loop, the sling strap having a lower sling portion configured to stably support at least one of the person's forearms so that opposing forces acting on the at least one forearm through the sling strap disperse across a non-localized area of the at least one forearm | The accused product has a strap connected to opposite ends of the pillow, positionable around one shoulder to form a loop, and has a lower sling portion configured to support a forearm and disperse forces across a non-localized area of the forearm. | ¶12 | col. 3:30-43 |
| wherein, the pillow and the sling strap are operable together so that when the at least one forearm rests on the lower sling portion and the pillow is placed against the side of the head and/or neck of the person on the one shoulder, the weight of the at least one forearm generates a force on the pillow that is transferred to the neck, head, and/or shoulders of the person | The accused product's pillow and strap operate together so that when the forearm rests on the sling portion, the weight of the forearm generates a force on the pillow that is transferred to the neck, head, and/or shoulders of the person. | ¶12 | col. 4:48-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of "non-localized area." The question is whether the accused product's strap is sufficiently wide or structured to meet this limitation, or if it concentrates force in a way that falls outside the claim's scope.
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused product actually performs the function recited in the "wherein" clause. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that the weight of a user's forearm in the accused product's sling "generates a force on the pillow that is transferred to the neck, head, and/or shoulders," as required by the claim, rather than simply holding the pillow in place.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "non-localized area"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the required structure and function of the arm sling portion. Infringement may turn on whether the accused product's strap disperses force sufficiently to be considered a "non-localized area."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose a specific dimensional requirement, suggesting any configuration that avoids sharp, localized pressure could suffice. The specification describes the benefit as allowing forces to "disperse across a larger area of the forearms" without further restriction (’471 Patent, col. 4:40-43).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific embodiment having a "wide and padded design" and suggests a width "in the range of 4 inches to 6 inches" (’471 Patent, col. 4:37-38, col. 7:43-45). A defendant may argue these details cabin the scope of the term to similarly wide or padded structures.
The Term: "operable together so that ... the weight of the at least one forearm generates a force on the pillow"
- Context and Importance: This functional limitation lies at the heart of the invention's counterweight mechanism. The entire infringement case rests on whether the accused product is structured to perform this specific force-transfer function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that any product structure where placing an arm in the sling results in the pillow being pulled more snugly against the head meets this limitation, regardless of the magnitude of the force.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could point to language in the specification describing the result as the pillow being "held taut and firm against the side of the head and neck" (’471 Patent, col. 8:61-63), arguing this implies a specific, significant degree of tension that must be generated, which their product may not achieve.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's factual allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendant's acts of making, using, and selling the accused product (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). No specific facts are alleged to support a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement "upon information and belief," stating that Defendant had "knowledge of the Patent-in-Suit" and acted despite an "objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not specify whether this alleged knowledge was obtained pre-suit or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused "40 Winks Travel Neck Pillow" actually operate using the counterweight principle recited in Claim 1, where the forearm's weight generates a supportive force transferred through the pillow to the head, or does its strap merely serve to hold the pillow in place without performing the claimed force-transfer function?
- A central legal issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "non-localized area" be met by a standard strap, or does the patent’s specification, with its discussion of a "wide and padded design," limit the term to structures with specific dimensions or features that the accused product may lack?