DCT
2:25-cv-11005
Flated LLC v. JL Concepts Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flated LLC (California)
- Defendant: JL Concepts Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Taylor Duma, LLP; Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks & Nessim, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-11005, C.D. Cal., 11/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s inflatable truck bed toppers infringe a patent related to vehicle accessories constructed from drop-stitch material.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns inflatable vehicle accessories, such as truck shells, designed to be rigid when inflated but collapsible for compact storage, offering an alternative to traditional heavy, rigid accessories.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant is allegedly importing and selling products that are the subject of Plaintiff’s infringement allegations in a separate, pending case in the same district against a retailer, I3 Enterprises Inc.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-09-22 | ’977 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-09-03 | ’977 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-11-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,077,977 - "Inflatable Vehicle Accessories" (issued Sep. 3, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problems associated with traditional rigid vehicle accessories like truck shells and cargo carriers, which are described as heavy, cumbersome, and difficult to store when not in use (’977 Patent, col. 1:45-50, 62-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses "drop-stitch" material—a structure comprising two layers of fabric connected by numerous threads—to create vehicle accessories that are rigid and structurally sound when inflated to high pressure but can be deflated, rolled, or folded into a compact form for easy storage and transport (’977 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:24-35). This material allows for the creation of inflatable truck shells that mount onto a truck bed, providing a covered space similar to a conventional topper (’977 Patent, col. 4:58-64).
- Technical Importance: The use of high-pressure inflatable drop-stitch material provides a lightweight, portable, and easily storable alternative to conventional rigid fiberglass or metal accessories (’977 Patent, col. 2:9-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying any particular claim (Compl. ¶13). For analytical purposes, independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology for a truck shell.
- Independent Claim 1:
- An inflatable truck shell device for mounting to a truck bed, comprising:
- a front wall, two sidewalls attached to the front wall to form a space, and a shell top extending over the space;
- an open rear between the rear ends of the sidewalls;
- at least one fastener on each sidewall for attaching the sidewalls to a truck;
- wherein the front wall and sidewalls are each formed of drop-stitch material; and
- wherein the space has an open bottom for exposing it to the truck bed.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused product as the "Armordillo 2020-2025 GMC Sierra CoveRex Inflatable Bed Topper - 6.9' Bed" (Compl. ¶12; Fig. 01). It is also referred to generally as an "inflatable bed topper" or "truck shell" (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the product is an "inflatable truck shell" that Defendant imports, offers for sale, and sells to retailers in the United States (Compl. ¶12). The complaint includes a product image showing the accused topper installed on the bed of a pickup truck (Compl. Fig. 01, p. 4). This image depicts a structure covering the truck bed, consistent with the function of a truck topper (Compl. Fig. 01).
- Plaintiff alleges that it is "the leader in the nascent market for inflatable bed toppers" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide further technical details regarding the materials or specific operation of the accused product.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement and incorporates by reference infringement contentions from a separate case, which are not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The following claim chart summary is based on the general identification of the accused product as an "inflatable bed topper" and the visual evidence provided.
’977 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a front wall having two sides, a sidewall attached to each of the two sides to form a first space... and a shell top extending over the first space to the rear ends | The accused product is an inflatable bed topper with a front wall, sidewalls, and a top that form a covered shell over a truck bed. | ¶12, Fig. 01 | col. 4:58-64 |
| an open rear between the rear end of each sidewall | The accused product, as a truck topper, has an open rear for access to the truck bed. | Fig. 01 | col. 4:62-63 |
| at least one fastener on each sidewall for attaching the sidewalls to a truck | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶12, ¶13 | col. 4:65-66 |
| wherein the front wall and sidewalls are each formed of drop-stitch material | The complaint identifies the accused product as an "inflatable bed topper," which Plaintiff's technology implements using drop-stitch material. | ¶8, ¶12, ¶13 | col. 4:58-59 |
| wherein the first space has an open bottom for exposing the first space to the truck bed of the truck | The accused product is a truck "topper" designed to be placed on the bed rails of a truck, thereby having an open bottom. | Fig. 01 | col. 5:6-8 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's patented technology uses "drop-stitch, inflatable walls" (Compl. ¶8) and accuses Defendant's "inflatable bed topper" of infringement (Compl. ¶12). However, the complaint does not explicitly allege that the accused product is made from "drop-stitch material" as required by claim 1. A primary point of contention will be the evidence presented to establish the material composition of the accused product.
- Pleading Sufficiency: The complaint's infringement theory relies on incorporating by reference "infringement contentions" served in a separate case against a different party (Compl. ¶15). Because these contentions are not attached, a potential issue is whether the complaint itself provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief against this defendant.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "drop-stitch material"
Context and Importance: This term is the central technical limitation of the asserted claims. The patent distinguishes its invention from the prior art based on the use of this specific material to achieve a structure that is both inflatable and rigid. Infringement will hinge on whether the accused product's material meets the definition of "drop-stitch material."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional description, stating the material "joins two pieces of polyester woven support fabric with thousands of fine, flexible polyester threads" and that an "air-tight coating is applied to the outer surfaces," allowing it to be inflated to high pressures (’977 Patent, col. 3:24-35). An interpretation focused on this structure and function could be argued as broad.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification mentions that the material can be inflated to "pressures of 20 psi (≈138 kPa)" (’977 Patent, col. 3:34-35). A party might argue that the term should be limited to materials capable of achieving this specific pressure and resulting rigidity, or to the specific polyester-based embodiments described.
The Term: "fastener"
Context and Importance: The means by which the accused product attaches to a truck will be compared to this claim element. The scope of "fastener" will determine what types of attachment mechanisms satisfy this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: In a different context within the specification, the patent provides a non-exhaustive list of fasteners: "clips, Velcro®, zippers, magnets or similar fasteners" (’977 Patent, col. 4:30-32). This suggests the patentee understood the term broadly. Furthermore, dependent claim 4 recites "clips and straps," which may imply that the term "fastener" in independent claim 1 is a broader genus.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiment of the truck shell describes using "Clips 156 on straps 158" to attach the shell to the truck (’977 Patent, col. 4:65-66). A party could argue that "fastener" in the context of claim 1 should be construed more narrowly to cover only the types of mechanisms disclosed for securing the shell to the vehicle.
VI. Other Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. Editor's Note: The complaint contains a product photo (Fig. 01), which is referenced in the analysis above, but does not provide detailed technical or operational evidence beyond showing the product's general appearance on a vehicle.
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of material composition: What evidence will be required to prove that the accused "Armordillo... Inflatable Bed Topper" is constructed from "drop-stitch material" as defined by the patent, a specific factual allegation that is absent from the text of the complaint?
- A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint's conclusory allegation of infringement, combined with an incorporation by reference of unattached infringement contentions from a separate lawsuit, satisfy the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement?