InkBed Inc v. Friction Tattoo Supply

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: InkBed, Inc. (Washington)
  • Defendant: Friction Tattoo Supply (unincorporated business, California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-05530, C.D. Cal., 07/26/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant resides in the judicial district and has committed acts of infringement there through a regular and established place of business, specifically a distribution center.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multi-position tattoo chairs infringe a patent related to an adjustable apparatus for supporting a person during tattooing.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized furniture for tattoo parlors, designed to be highly adjustable to provide ergonomic support for clients and optimal access for artists.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant on April 6, 2017, identifying the patent-in-suit and demanding that Defendant cease infringement. The complaint also notes a 2013 settlement between Defendant and an affiliate of Plaintiff regarding Defendant’s use of the "InkChair" trademark, which Plaintiff suggests establishes a pattern of disregard for its intellectual property.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,375,088 - "Apparatus for Support During Tattooing," issued June 28, 2016 (’088 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that furniture used by tattoo artists is often repurposed from medical or salon applications and can be uncomfortable for both the artist and the client during long sessions (U.S. Patent No. 9,375,088, col. 1:24-30). This furniture may not position the client in a way that naturally stretches the skin, forcing the artist to manually stretch it, which is uncomfortable and can lead to a disfigured tattoo (’088 Patent, col. 1:33-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, highly configurable apparatus that functions as both a chair and a bed. It features a seat section, a back section, and multiple independently adjustable leg and arm sections (’088 Patent, col. 1:51-65). The components can be articulated to place a client in an ergonomic position, support different body parts for tattooing, and optimally position the client for the artist (’088 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2, Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to consolidate multiple pieces of studio furniture into one device while providing superior ergonomic positioning, thereby aiding the artist in applying tattoos more comfortably and precisely (’088 Patent, col. 1:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶15, ¶16).
• Claim 16 requires:
  • A seat section.
  • A back section movable relative to the seat section to switch between a chair and bed configuration.
  • A first rotatable leg assembly that can rotate about a first (horizontal) axis and a second (vertical) axis.
  • A second rotatable leg assembly that can rotate about a third (horizontal) axis and a fourth (vertical) axis.
  • The first and second leg assemblies are independently rotatable about the second and fourth (vertical) axes.
  • The second and fourth axes extend through the seat section, allowing the leg sections to be rotatable rearwardly past a front section of the seat.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Tattoo Chair Full Flagship" ("Flagship") and "Tattoo Chair Lite Hybrid" ("Hybrid") models sold by Friction Tattoo Supply (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that both the Flagship and Hybrid models are multi-positional chairs that include a seat section and a back section that can move between a chair and a bed configuration (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). The complaint references an image allegedly showing the Flagship model converting between these two states (Compl. ¶15, citing Ex. 2 at 2, 3).
• Both models are alleged to have two rotatable leg assemblies. The complaint alleges these assemblies can rotate about axes that are parallel and perpendicular to a "horizontal transverse plane of the apparatus," mirroring the language of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). A photograph of the Flagship model is referenced to show the two rotatable leg assemblies (Compl. ¶15, citing Ex. 2 at 4).
• The complaint alleges these products are sold through Defendant's online store (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’088 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of the spatial and directional limitations. For example, the meaning of "generally parallel" and "generally perpendicular" to a "horizontal transverse plane" may be disputed, as "generally" introduces a degree of imprecision.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused products meet the limitation "rotatable rearwardly past a front section of the seat section" (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). The case may turn on the factual evidence demonstrating this specific and complex range of motion in the accused products and whether that movement corresponds to the claim language as construed by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "rotatable rearwardly past a front section of the seat section"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to define a specific, non-obvious capability of the leg assemblies. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused products' rotational movement can be characterized as moving "rearwardly past" a defined "front section." Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a functional limitation describing a complex spatial relationship that may distinguish the invention from the prior art.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the leg sections rotating "up to 90 degrees outward from the midsagittal line" to allow access to the inner leg (’088 Patent, col. 2:10-14), which could be argued as one type of "rearward" motion.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself appears only in the claims, not the detailed description. A party could argue that its meaning must be derived from its plain language in the context of the figures, such as Figure 18, which shows the leg sections rotated away from the chair's front. This may suggest a specific type of rotation (e.g., splaying outwards and back) rather than any movement that has a rearward vector.

• The Term: "generally parallel" / "generally perpendicular"

• Context and Importance: These modifiers are used to define the orientation of the four axes of rotation for the leg assemblies. The scope of the claim hinges on how much deviation from true parallel or perpendicular alignment is permitted by the term "generally."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition or numerical range for "generally." A party might argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which implies an approximation and does not require strict geometric precision.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term must be interpreted in light of the patent's figures, which depict axes that appear to be perfectly parallel or perpendicular to the transverse plane (e.g., Fig. 3, axis 350). This might support a construction that requires the axes to be at least substantially parallel or perpendicular.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement).
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff includes a separate count for willful infringement (Compl., COUNT II). The claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’088 Patent. Specifically, the complaint states that counsel for InkBed sent a letter to Friction on April 6, 2017, providing actual notice of the patent and the infringement allegations, and that Friction failed to respond or cease its activities (Compl. ¶21-22). The complaint also points to a prior 2013 trademark dispute as evidence of a "pattern of disregard for InkBed's intellectual property" (Compl. ¶23-24).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the precise mechanical movements required by Claim 16, particularly the limitation that the leg sections must be "rotatable rearwardly past a front section of the seat section"? The outcome of this construction will likely determine the scope of the patent.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused Flagship and Hybrid chairs, as they actually operate, perform the full combination of rotations about four distinct axes as defined in the claim, including the specific "rearwardly past" motion? The case will likely involve a battle of experts on the mechanical functionality of the accused products.
• A third question relates to willfulness: given the allegation that Defendant received a specific notice letter nearly four months before the suit was filed and did not respond, the court will have to examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if any infringement was willful, which could expose Defendant to enhanced damages.