DCT

2:17-cv-07351

Jamie S Leach v. Day To Day Imports Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-07351, C.D. Cal., 10/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the corporate defendants are California corporations with principal places of business in the district, and the individual defendants are residents of the district who have allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' "C-Shaped" and "J-Shaped" full-body pregnancy pillows infringe a patent covering a pillow with a horseshoe-shaped top and a J-shaped bottom.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns ergonomic, full-body support pillows, a consumer product category with a significant market, particularly for maternity and therapeutic uses.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiffs previously filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Defendant Pharmedoc, Inc. in the Western District of Oklahoma in September 2016 concerning the same patent and accused product. That action is allegedly still ongoing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-10-31 Plaintiff's Snoogle® pillow introduced (approximate date)
2000-10-19 '164 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2002-12-31 '164 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-12 First accused import shipment by Defendants listed in complaint
2016-09-28 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2016-09-30 Oklahoma Patent Action filed against Pharmedoc, Inc.
2016-10-31 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2016-12-12 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2016-12-19 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2016-12-26 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-01-02 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-01-16 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-01-31 Accused import shipment by Defendants (description changed to "C-Shape")
2017-02-06 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-04-25 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-05-02 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-05-17 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-05-23 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-06-20 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-07-06 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-07-25 Accused import shipment by Defendants
2017-10-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,499,164 - "Body Pillow with Horseshoe-Shaped Top and J-Shaped Bottom"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a full-body support pillow that conforms to a user’s body to provide comprehensive support and comfort, particularly for pregnant women who may find it desirable to keep space between their legs for temperature control ('164 Patent, col. 8:14-20). The invention aims to provide a single, integrated pillow that supports the head, back, and legs simultaneously ('164 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a uniquely shaped body pillow featuring an upper "horseshoe-shaped" portion to cradle the head and shoulders, connected by an elongated straight mid-section to a lower "J-shaped" portion intended to be placed between the user's legs ('164 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7). This specific combination of shapes is designed to provide full-body support in a side-sleeping position ('164 Patent, col. 8:7-12).
  • Technical Importance: The design’s novelty lies in its specific, unitary C-like shape that combines head, torso, and leg support, which the complaint alleges "completely transform[ed] the market for maternity pillows" (Compl. ¶38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶109).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A body pillow having a top which is essentially in the shape of a horseshoe for accommodating an upper end of a person
    • and a bottom which is essentially in the shape of a J for accommodating a lower end of the person,
    • a substantially cylindrical straight portion connecting the horseshoe-shaped top with the J-shaped bottom,
    • the cross-sectional diameter of the body pillow being between 7 and 12 inches,
    • the horseshoe shaped top constituting a semi-toroidal member having a diameter of about 25 to 26 inches,
    • and terminating in a foot spaced from the straight portion extending parallel to the straight portion and forming therewith a curved opening.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶109, footnote not present but implied by standard practice).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "StGL Pillow," which is marketed under names including "PharMeDoc Full Body Pregnancy Pillow - C Shaped" and was previously marketed as "J-Shaped" (Compl. ¶16, 47, 49, 52).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a full-body pillow sold for maternity and general comfort, designed to support the user's head, back, and legs (Compl. ¶47). The complaint alleges the product is a direct competitor to the plaintiff's Snoogle® pillow and is sold through major online retailers like Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and others (Compl. ¶47, 57). The complaint includes a screenshot of the accused product's Amazon.com sales page, showing a user with the pillow in a C-shaped configuration (Compl. ¶47, p. 17). The complaint further alleges that Defendants have engaged in a "shell game" using multiple corporate entities and online storefronts to import and sell the accused pillows while obscuring the identity of the responsible parties (Compl. ¶63, 79). A chart in the complaint purports to show a dramatic increase in importation of the accused pillows over a one-year period (Compl. ¶76, p. 36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’164 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A body pillow having a top which is essentially in the shape of a horseshoe for accommodating an upper end of a person... The complaint alleges the accused StGL Pillow has "a top end that is essentially in the shape of a horseshoe for accommodating the upper end of a person (e.g., their head)." ¶53 col. 5:8-10
and a bottom which is essentially in the shape of a J for accommodating a lower end of the person... The complaint alleges the accused StGL Pillow has "a bottom end essentially in the shape of a J for accommodating a lower end of the person (e.g., their legs)." ¶53 col. 5:10-12
a substantially cylindrical straight portion connecting the horseshoe-shaped top with the J-shaped bottom... The accused pillow is alleged to have "a substantially cylindrical straight portion connecting the horseshoe-shaped top with the essentially J-shaped bottom." ¶53 col. 5:12-14
the cross-sectional diameter of the body pillow being between 7 and 12 inches... The complaint asserts the "cross-sectional diameter of the StGL Pillow is about 9 inches (i.e., within a range of between 7 and 12 inches)." ¶20, ¶53 col. 5:14-16
the horseshoe shaped top constituting a semi-toroidal member having a diameter of about 25 to 26 inches... The complaint alleges the pillow's top "is a semi-toroidal member having about a 26-inch diameter (i.e., within a range of about 25 to 26 inches)." ¶20, ¶53 col. 5:16-19
and terminating in a foot spaced from the straight portion extending parallel to the straight portion and forming therewith a curved opening. The accused pillow's top allegedly "terminates in a foot spaced from the straight portion extending parallel to the straight portion to form a curved opening." ¶20, ¶53 col. 5:17-20

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint states that Defendants market the accused pillow as "C Shaped" and previously as "J-Shaped" (Compl. ¶47, 49). A central question for the court will be whether a product described as "C-Shaped" falls within the scope of a claim requiring a combination of a "horseshoe" shaped top and a "J-shaped" bottom. The complaint directly confronts this, arguing that regardless of the name, the pillows are "substantially the same" (Compl. ¶52).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes very specific allegations about the dimensions of the accused pillow, such as its 9-inch cross-sectional diameter and 26-inch top diameter (Compl. ¶20, 53). A key factual question will be whether discovery confirms that the accused products meet these specific numerical limitations recited in claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "essentially in the shape of a horseshoe"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the Defendants market the accused product as "C-Shaped" (Compl. ¶47). The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether "C-Shaped" is construed as being "essentially in the shape of a horseshoe." Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendants' own marketing language creates an immediate non-infringement argument that must be overcome through claim construction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the modifier "essentially," which may suggest that the exact geometry of a literal horseshoe is not required and that some deviation is permitted ('164 Patent, col. 5:8-9). Plaintiffs could argue the term refers functionally to any C-like shape that cradles the user's head and shoulders.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent depict a shape with two relatively straight, parallel arms connected by a curve, which is a common representation of a horseshoe ('164 Patent, Fig. 1). Defendants may argue this specific geometry is distinct from the more uniform curve of a "C" and that the term "semi-toroidal" in the claim requires a specific, non-uniform curve.

  • The Term: "essentially in the shape of a J"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the bottom portion of the pillow. Its construction is important because if the accused "C-Shaped" pillow is found to have a uniform curve, Defendants may argue it lacks a distinct "J-shaped" bottom, which typically implies a straight section followed by a hook.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of this portion as being "received between the legs" to provide "temperature control" ('164 Patent, col. 8:14-20). Plaintiffs may argue that any curved end portion that performs this function meets the "essentially... J-shaped" limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently show a shape with a final hook distinct from the elongated straight portion, resembling the letter 'J' ('164 Patent, Fig. 1, 6). Defendants could argue that a simple, continuous C-curve does not possess the hook element integral to a J-shape.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the individual defendants induced infringement by "knowingly and actively" assisting the corporate defendants' direct infringement (Compl. ¶117). Knowledge is alleged based on the prior Oklahoma litigation, which put them on notice of the '164 Patent (Compl. ¶118). The complaint further alleges that the decision to change the product's name from "J-Shaped" to "C-Shaped" demonstrates a "subjective belief that there was a high probability that the StGL Pillow infringes" and constitutes willful blindness (Compl. ¶119).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the '164 Patent from at least September 2016, due to the filing of the Oklahoma lawsuit (Compl. ¶110). The complaint alleges that Defendants "elected to pursue the actions described herein in wanton disregard of the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights" (Compl. ¶110).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "essentially in the shape of a horseshoe" and "essentially in the shape of a J," which describe distinct components in the patent, be construed to collectively cover a single, continuous curve marketed by Defendants as "C-Shaped"? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive of infringement.
  • A second central question will relate to liability and corporate form: given the complaint's detailed allegations of a "shell game" involving numerous overlapping corporate entities, storefronts, and individuals (Compl. ¶78-79), a key battleground will be whether Plaintiffs can present sufficient evidence to hold the various named defendants jointly liable or to hold the individual defendants personally responsible for inducing infringement.
  • An underlying evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: does the accused pillow, as sold, actually meet the specific dimensional limitations required by claim 1 (e.g., a "cross-sectional diameter... between 7 and 12 inches" and a "horseshoe shaped top... having a diameter of about 25 to 26 inches"), as the complaint alleges?