Keezio Group LLC A California Ltd Liability Co v. Regalo Intl LLC A Minnesota Ltd Liability Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Keezio Group, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Regalo Intl, LLC (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices Of Christopher W. Sweeney
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00284, N.D. Cal., 01/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant markets, distributes, and sells its products to customers within the district through retailers including Amazon, Target, and Walmart, and has purposefully directed its activities to California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s inflatable toddler travel bed infringes a design patent for an inflatable mattress with bumpers.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer children's products sector, specifically concerning the ornamental appearance of portable, inflatable toddler beds.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that after Plaintiff's counsel issued an infringement opinion, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Amazon, which then removed the accused product from its platform. Subsequently, Defendant’s president allegedly emailed Plaintiff acknowledging notice of the patent via Amazon, admitting to current sales and future inventory in transit, and proposing to cease sales after the in-transit inventory was sold.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-01-01	Plaintiff's "Hiccapop Inflatable Toddler Travel Bed" launched
2018-01-01	Defendant allegedly began developing its accused product
2019-03-28	'543 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2019-07-02	'543 Patent Issue Date
2023-10-31	Defendant allegedly began shipping its accused product ("late 2023")
2024-01-05	Plaintiff's counsel issued an infringement opinion
2024-01-08	Defendant allegedly received notice of infringement via Amazon and emailed Plaintiff
2024-01-17	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D852,543 - "INFLATABLE MATTRESS WITH BUMPER"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D852,543, "INFLATABLE MATTRESS WITH BUMPER," issued July 2, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the commercial embodiment of the patent as an "inflatable toddler travel bed with safety bumpers [4-sided]," suggesting the patent addresses the need for a portable and safe sleeping apparatus for young children that prevents them from rolling off the mattress (Compl. ¶6).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of an inflatable mattress, not its function (Compl. Ex. B, p. 1). The design, as illustrated in the patent's figures, features a generally rectangular mattress with a recessed central sleeping area defined by four raised, inflated bumpers—two longer side bumpers and two shorter "pillow" members at the ends (’543 Patent, Figs. 1, 6). The claim protects the overall visual impression created by these elements as depicted in the drawings (’543 Patent, col. 1:53-54).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the design is associated with Plaintiff’s "hiccapop" line of children's products, which has sold "hundreds of thousands of units" primarily on Amazon, suggesting the design's commercial significance in the online marketplace (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for an inflatable mattress with bumper, as shown and described."
• The core visual elements that constitute the design "as shown" include:
  • A rectangular shape with rounded corners
  • Arcuate "pillow" members extending upwards at the two ends
  • Arcuate bumper members extending upwards along the sides
  • A slight outward bulge of the side bumpers near their middle
  • Elongated, parallel raised support sections within the recessed central portion of the mattress
  • A handle feature on one of the end bumpers

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The “Regalo Inflatable Toddler Travel Bed With 4-Sided Bed Bumpers And Handles,” referred to as the "Regalo Mattress" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused product is an inflatable travel bed for toddlers, sold on Amazon and through other prominent retailers like Target and Walmart (Compl. ¶8).
• The complaint alleges the accused product contains "numerous significant similarities that embody patented ornamental features" of the ’543 Patent to a degree that an "ordinary observer would accidentally mistake" the two products (Compl. ¶8). The complaint includes a side-by-side photographic comparison of the patented design and the accused product from a perspective view to illustrate these alleged similarities (Compl. Ex. B, p. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a traditional claim chart but incorporates by reference an infringement opinion letter that serves the same purpose by comparing features of the patented design to the accused product (Compl. ¶17; Ex. B). The central infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The infringement opinion letter provides a top-down visual comparison of the patent's Figure 6 and a photograph of the accused product (Compl. Ex. B, p. 2).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Overall Similarity vs. Specific Differences: The core of the dispute will be whether the alleged overall visual similarity between the products is sufficient for infringement in light of identifiable differences. Plaintiff’s infringement opinion acknowledges two differences: the accused product lacks the handle element shown in the patent's design, and it has a different bottom surface design (Compl. Ex. B, pp. 3-4).
  • Ornamental Significance of the Handle: A legal and factual question is whether the handle element is a significant part of the claimed ornamental design. Plaintiff alleges the handle is "primarily functional" and has "extremely limited ornamentation," such that its absence creates only a "minimally divergent overall impression" (Compl. Ex. B, p. 3). A court would need to decide if an ordinary observer would consider the handle an important part of the overall aesthetic.
  • Relevance of the Bottom Surface: The complaint presents a comparison of the flat bottom shown in the patent's Figure 7 with the ridged bottom of the accused product (Compl. Ex. B, p. 3). Plaintiff argues this difference is insignificant because an ordinary observer would not see the bottom of the mattress during "common use," thereby diminishing its importance to the infringement analysis (Compl. Ex. B, p. 4). The weight a court gives to features not typically visible during use will be a point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, there are typically no claim terms to construe in the traditional sense. The "claim" is the design as a whole, depicted in the drawings. The dispute centers on the scope of the claimed design and the importance of its various features to the overall visual impression.

• The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown"
• Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the interpretation of the patented design's scope. Practitioners may focus on whether specific elements, such as the handle or the flat bottom, are strict limitations on the design's scope or are merely minor details within a broader overall impression.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the core ornamental concept is the combination of a recessed sleeping surface with four raised, rounded bumpers, and that the overall impression is not substantially altered by the removal of a minor feature like the handle or a change to a non-visible surface like the bottom. The solid lines in all figures, viewed together, define this overall shape.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claimed design is precisely what is shown in the drawings, including all depicted elements. The patent explicitly illustrates a handle element in Figure 3 and a flat bottom in Figure 7 (’543 Patent, Figs. 3, 7). A narrower interpretation would hold that any product lacking these specific features, such as the accused Regalo Mattress, necessarily has a different overall ornamental appearance.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads inducement and contributory infringement, alleging Defendant encourages its customers and retailers to market and sell the Regalo Mattress using "depictions of its ornamental features" in a manner that causes infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’543 Patent as of at least January 8, 2024, based on a notice from Amazon and direct email communications (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 20). The complaint further alleges that Defendant "has continued after January 8, 2024, to knowingly and willfully infringe" by continuing to market and sell the product, and by proposing to sell through its remaining inventory (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 20; Ex. C). These allegations, if proven, could support a finding of willfulness.

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

1. A central issue will be one of design scope and the ordinary observer test: Will the court find that the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Regalo Mattress is substantially the same as the ’543 patent design, or will the differences—specifically the absence of a handle and the dissimilar bottom surface—be sufficient to create a different visual impression in the eyes of an ordinary observer?

2. A key question regarding damages will be willfulness: Does the evidence, particularly the January 8, 2024 email from Defendant’s president, establish that Defendant acted with knowledge or willful blindness of its alleged infringement, thereby exposing it to potential enhanced damages for any post-notice sales?