DCT
2:25-cv-04257
Flated LLC v. I3 Enterprises, Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flated LLC (California)
- Defendant: I3 Enterprises, Inc. (California) and Meyer Distributing, Inc. (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Socal IP Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-04257, C.D. Cal., 05/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant I3 Enterprises resides in Los Angeles County and Defendant Meyer Distributing has an established place of business and committed alleged acts of infringement in San Bernardino County, both within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ inflatable truck toppers infringe a patent related to inflatable vehicle accessories constructed from drop-stitch material.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns vehicle accessories, such as truck bed shells, that are designed to be inflated for rigid structural support during use and deflated for compact storage, addressing the weight and bulk of traditional accessories.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants received actual notice of the patent-in-suit on June 26, 2024, prior to the patent's issuance, and continued their allegedly infringing activities thereafter.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-09-22 | Earliest Priority Date ('977 Patent) |
| 2024-06-26 | Alleged date of actual notice to Defendants |
| 2024-09-03 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 12,077,977) |
| 2025-05-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,077,977, “Inflatable Vehicle Accessories,” Issued September 3, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional vehicle cargo carriers and truck shells as being made of rigid plastic, fiberglass, or metal, which makes them heavy, cumbersome, and difficult to store when not in use (’977 Patent, col. 1:46-53, 57-62). Attaching these rigid structures to a vehicle can also be problematic and potentially unsafe (’977 Patent, col. 1:49-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle accessory, such as a truck shell, constructed from "drop-stitch" material. This material joins two fabric surfaces with numerous threads, allowing the structure to be inflated to high pressure to become rigid, yet remain lightweight (’977 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-15). When not in use, the accessory can be deflated, rolled, or folded for compact storage and easy transport (’977 Patent, col. 2:17-24). The patent describes how this material can be formed into components like a front wall, sidewalls, and a top to create a truck shell that mounts onto a truck bed (’977 Patent, col. 4:58-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a lightweight, storable, and portable alternative to traditional, permanently rigid truck toppers, which often require significant space for off-vehicle storage and can be difficult to mount and remove (’977 Patent, col. 2:33-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (’977 Patent, col. 5:63 – col. 6:9; Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements for an inflatable truck shell device:
- A front wall with two sides.
- A sidewall attached to each of the two sides of the front wall, forming a first space.
- Each sidewall has a rear end.
- A shell top extends over the first space to the rear ends.
- An open rear between the rear end of each sidewall.
- At least one fastener on each sidewall for attaching to a truck.
- The front wall and sidewalls are formed of drop-stitch material.
- The first space has an open bottom for exposing it to the truck bed.
- The complaint states infringement of "at least one claim," reserving the right to assert other claims (’977 Patent, Compl. ¶14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the "Coverex Toppers," which are described as inflatable truck shells sold by Defendant I3 Enterprises (doing business as Armodillo USA) and distributed by Defendant Meyer Distributing (Compl. ¶¶2, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Coverex Toppers are inflatable truck shells advertised as "in-flatable" (Compl. ¶15, p.4). A diagram provided in the complaint shows the accused product as a multi-panel structure with a front panel, side panels, a top, a rear window, and side fixing rails for attachment to a truck (Compl. p.4, Fig. 02). This diagram, labeled "Fig. 02," presents an exploded view of the accused Coverex Topper's components (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that the structure of the Coverex Toppers corresponds to the elements of Claim 1 of the '977 Patent and that the product's use of inflatable technology suggests it is made from drop-stitch fabric (Compl. ¶15, pp. 4-5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'977 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An inflatable truck shell device for mounting to a truck bed, comprising: | Defendant I3 advertises its truck shell as "in-flatable" | ¶15 | col. 2:10-12 |
| a front wall having two sides, | The accused product's "Front wall 4" has two sides | ¶15 | col. 4:60-61 |
| a sidewall attached to each of the two sides to form a first space, | The accused product's "Sidewalls 1 attach to the two sides of the front wall to form a first space" | ¶15 | col. 4:61-62 |
| each sidewall having a rear end, | The accused product's "Rear window 3 attaches to the rear end of each sidewall" | ¶15 | col. 4:62-63 |
| and a shell top extending over the first space to the rear ends; | The accused product's "Top also 1 extends over the first space to the rear ends of the side-walls" | ¶15 | col. 4:63-65 |
| an open rear between the rear end of each sidewall; | The complaint alleges "The space between the rear ends of the side walls is an open rear" | ¶15 | col. 4:61-63 |
| at least one fastener on each sidewall for attaching the sidewalls to a truck; | The accused product's "Side fixing rails 6 on each sidewall attach the sidewalls to a truck" | ¶15 | col. 4:65-68 |
| wherein the front wall and side-walls are each formed of drop-stitch material; and | The complaint alleges that I3 "would use dropstitch fabric because of its use on inflatable products. Dropstitch fabric withstands high air pressure without stretching or deforming" | ¶15 | col. 3:24-30 |
| wherein the first space has an open bottom for exposing the first space to the truck bed of the truck. | The complaint states that "The drawing shows an open bottom" | ¶15 | col. 6:7-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint's allegation that the accused product is "formed of drop-stitch material" is based on an inference that I3 "would use" such fabric for its inflatable products (Compl. ¶15). A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can prove the accused Coverex Toppers are, in fact, constructed from material meeting the patent's definition of "drop-stitch material."
- Scope Question: The complaint maps the accused "Rear window 3" to the claim limitation "each sidewall having a rear end" (Compl. ¶15). This raises the question of whether a separate component, like a window, can satisfy the structural requirement of being the "rear end" of the sidewall itself, or if the claim requires the sidewall panel to terminate in a particular way.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "drop-stitch material"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core technological basis of the invention and appears in the asserted independent claim. The infringement dispute may depend entirely on whether the accused product’s material composition falls within the scope of this term, particularly as the complaint's allegation on this point is inferential.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a general description, stating the material "joins two pieces of polyester woven support fabric with thousands of fine, flexible polyester threads" and has an "air-tight coating" (’977 Patent, col. 3:24-31). This could support a construction covering a range of similar fabrics.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue the term is limited by specific characteristics described, such as the ability to be "inflated to pressures of 20 psi (≈138 kPa)" (’977 Patent, col. 3:34-35), potentially excluding materials that do not meet this performance threshold.
The Term: "rear end" (of each sidewall)
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's infringement theory maps a distinct component—the "Rear window 3"—to this structural limitation (Compl. ¶15). The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether the "rear end" of a sidewall can be construed to be the point of attachment for a separate window element.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that in the context of the overall structure, the rearmost functional boundary of the sidewall—where it interfaces with the rear opening or a rear component like a window—constitutes its "rear end."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show the sidewalls (144, 146) as distinct panels that terminate, and a separate door or opening (148, 152) exists at the rear (’977 Patent, Fig. 9; col. 4:61-64). This could support a narrower reading where the "rear end" is the physical edge of the sidewall panel itself, not an attached component.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on the assertion that Defendants "received actual notice of the '977 Patent as early as June 26, 2024," and subsequently continued their allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶19). It is alleged that this continuation occurred despite an "objectively high likelihood that their actions were infringement" and that Defendants "knew or should have known of this risk" (Compl. ¶¶26-28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of technical evidence: can Plaintiff prove that the accused Coverex Toppers are constructed from "drop-stitch material" as claimed in the patent? The current allegation is inferential, and the outcome may depend on evidence obtained through discovery regarding the product's specific materials and manufacturing process.
- A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the accused product's "Rear window 3" component satisfy the claim limitation requiring "each sidewall having a rear end"? The case may turn on whether the court construes this structural term to mean the physical termination of the sidewall panel or more broadly to include the rearmost attachment point of the sidewall assembly.