DCT
2:22-cv-08396
Purple Innovation LLC v. Diamond Mattress Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Purple Innovation, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Diamond Mattress Company, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ray Quinney & Nebeker, P.C.; Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-08396, C.D. Cal., 11/17/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is incorporated in California and has its principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hybrid mattresses featuring "Gel Grid" technology infringe a patent related to a specific multi-layer mattress construction that integrates an elastomeric comfort layer with a pocketed coil assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to hybrid mattress design, a major segment of the consumer bedding market that seeks to combine the support of traditional innersprings with the comfort and pressure relief of materials like foam and gel.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patent-in-suit, or a prior licensing relationship.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-11-17 | U.S. Patent No. 11,317,733 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2022-05-03 | U.S. Patent No. 11,317,733 Issue Date |
| 2022-07-XX | Defendant allegedly launched new accused mattresses |
| 2022-11-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,317,733 - Mattresses Including an Elastomeric Cushioning Element and a Pocketed Coil Layer and Related Methods
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,317,733, Mattresses Including an Elastomeric Cushioning Element and a Pocketed Coil Layer and Related Methods, issued May 3, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section discusses challenges with conventional mattresses, including the difficulty of compressing mattresses with rigid wire frames for modern "bed-in-a-box" shipping and the desire to better combine the distinct properties of coil springs and other cushioning materials. (’733 Patent, col. 1:28-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific multi-layer mattress assembly. As illustrated in Figure 2, it comprises, from bottom to top, a base layer (102), a pocketed coil layer (104), an upper layer (106) (e.g., foam), a "stabilization layer" (116) made of a material like scrim fabric, and an elastomeric cushioning element (108) (e.g., a gel grid). A distinguishing feature is that the elastomeric material is described as "seeping through" the stabilization layer, which helps to "secure" the layers together and create a "non-slip surface" against the upper layer below it. (’733 Patent, col. 4:40-63; Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This construction offers a method for integrating a gel-based comfort layer with a pocketed coil support core in a way that is intended to prevent shifting between the disparate materials, a key consideration for the durability and performance of hybrid mattresses. (’733 Patent, col. 4:61-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an apparatus) and 16 (a method). (Compl. ¶48).
- The core elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- a base layer;
- a coil layer with a plurality of pocketed coils;
- an upper layer disposed over the coil layer;
- a stabilization layer comprising a scrim fabric;
- an elastomeric cushioning element, where the elastomeric material seeps through the stabilization layer to secure it and define a non-slip or reduced slip surface on the bottom of the stabilization layer; and
- an outer covering encasing the other components.
- The complaint states infringement of claims "including (without limitation) claims 1 and 16," which suggests the right to assert other claims may be reserved. (Compl. ¶48).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s hybrid mattresses that incorporate its "Gel Grid by Diamond" technology, which the complaint collectively refers to as the "Infringing Product." (Compl. ¶¶27, 33). One specific example named is the "Response Cool Hybrid Mattress." (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as hybrid mattresses that feature a layer of individually wrapped coils and a separate "cushioning layer" referred to as the "Gel Grid." (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 27). The complaint, citing marketing materials, alleges this Gel Grid provides benefits such as cooling, pressure relief, and multi-directional movement to adapt to a sleeper. (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The complaint provides a cutaway image of the accused "Response Cool Hybrid Mattress," showing its layered structure. (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’733 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base layer; | A layer over which the layer of individually wrapped coils is disposed. | ¶35 | col. 4:15-17 |
| a coil layer disposed over the base layer, the coil layer comprising a plurality of pocketed coils; | The accused product's "layer of individually wrapped coils." | ¶34 | col. 4:20-24 |
| an upper layer disposed over the coil layer; | A layer disposed over the layer of individually wrapped coils. | ¶36 | col. 4:24-27 |
| a stabilization layer comprising a scrim fabric; | A "white fabric" shown in a trade show photograph below the Defendant's "Gel Grid," which is alleged to be included in the Infringing Product. A photograph shows the Gel Grid material resting on a patterned fabric. (Compl. ¶37). | ¶38 | col. 4:40-44 |
| an elastomeric cushioning element disposed over the stabilization layer, an elastomeric material...seeping through the stabilization layer to secure an upper surface of the stabilization layer to the elastomeric cushioning element, the elastomeric material exposed and defining a reduced slip surface or a non-slip surface... | The "Gel Grid" layer, which allegedly "pushes (or otherwise seeps) through the fabric" to create a "reduced slip surface or a non-slip surface" on the fabric's lower side. A photograph from a trade show depicts the Gel Grid marketing materials. (Compl. ¶32). | ¶34, ¶39, ¶40 | col. 4:50-60 |
| an outer covering encasing the base layer, the coil layer, the upper layer, the stabilization layer, and the elastomeric cushioning element. | A cover that allegedly encases the layers of the Infringing Product. | ¶41 | col. 4:35-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A central factual question appears to be the nature of the physical interaction between Defendant's "Gel Grid" and the underlying fabric. The complaint alleges the material "pushes (or otherwise seeps) through the fabric." (Compl. ¶39). What evidence demonstrates that this interaction occurs and that it functions to "secure" the layers and create a "non-slip surface" as required by the claim?
- Scope Question: Does the "white fabric" (Compl. ¶38) allegedly used in the accused product meet the claim limitation of a "stabilization layer comprising a scrim fabric"? The definition and required properties of "scrim fabric" may be a point of dispute and a focus for claim construction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "seeping through"
Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement theory, as it defines the unique interaction between the elastomeric grid and the stabilization layer. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the physical contact in the accused product falls within the scope of "seeping through." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's own language—"pushes (or otherwise seeps)" (Compl. ¶39)—suggests that the nature of this interaction is a potential point of dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides a non-exhaustive list of what "seep through" can mean, including "be melt-fused into, bleed through, push through, leak through, pass through, etc." (’733 Patent, col. 4:50-53). This language may support a broad, functional interpretation that does not require a specific chemical or physical process.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "seeping through" to achieve the function of "secur[ing]" the layers. A party could argue this functional requirement implies a more substantial material integration or bonding than mere surface contact or slight deformation of the fabric from the weight of the gel grid.
The Term: "stabilization layer"
Context and Importance: This is a required structural element of the claimed mattress assembly. If the fabric layer in the accused product is not a "stabilization layer" as defined by the patent, there can be no literal infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the layer's function as providing "a surface for adhering (e.g., gluing) the elastomeric cushioning element" to other materials and helping "cushioning materials stay in place." (’733 Patent, col. 4:42-45, 61-63). This functional description could support including any fabric layer that serves this purpose.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself, "stabilization," could be argued to require that the layer provides a specific degree of structural integrity or resistance to movement beyond merely being a substrate for adhesion. Furthermore, Claim 1 explicitly requires this layer to comprise "a scrim fabric," which could be construed as a structural limitation rather than a purely functional one.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement (e.g., it does not allege that Defendant’s manuals or marketing instruct customers to assemble or use the product in an infringing manner). However, the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin inducing infringement. (Compl., p. 12).
- Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that Defendant had notice of the ’733 patent upon the filing and service of the complaint, and that any subsequent infringement is therefore willful. (Compl. ¶¶46, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical evidence: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the material of Defendant's "Gel Grid" physically "seeps through" the underlying fabric to "secure" the layers, as required by the patent? Or will discovery show that the grid merely rests on the fabric with incidental contact, presenting a functional mismatch with the claim language?
- The case will also likely turn on a question of claim construction: how will the court define "seeping through"? Will the patent's broad, illustrative language encompass any interaction that increases friction between the layers, or will the functional requirement to "secure" the layers demand proof of a more integral, physical bond or material transfer?