DCT
5:24-cv-00284
Keezio Group LLC A California Ltd Liability Co v. Regalo Intl LLC A Minnesota Ltd Liability Co
Key Events
Complaint
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: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly marketing, distributing, and selling accused products to customers within the Northern District of California through retailers like Target, Walmart, and Amazon, and purposefully directing its activities to the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s inflatable toddler travel bed infringes its design patent covering the ornamental appearance of an inflatable mattress with bumpers.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer market for children's products, specifically portable, inflatable beds designed for travel.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references a pre-suit infringement opinion letter sent from Plaintiff's counsel to Plaintiff, which was subsequently provided to Amazon to initiate an infringement complaint on that platform. The complaint also includes an email from Defendant’s president acknowledging receipt of the Amazon notice, which may be significant for establishing the date of Defendant's knowledge of the patent for willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017 | Plaintiff's "Hiccapop Inflatable Toddler Travel Bed" released |
| 2019-03-28 | U.S. Patent No. D852,543 application filed |
| 2019-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. D852,543 issues |
| Late 2023 | Defendant's accused "Regalo Mattress" first sold |
| 2024-01-05 | Plaintiff's counsel issues infringement opinion |
| 2024-01-08 | Defendant acknowledges notice of '543 Patent via email |
| 2024-01-17 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D852,543 - "INFLATABLE MATTRESS WITH BUMPER"
Issued July 2, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamentation, not utility. The patent itself does not articulate a technical problem, as its purpose is to claim a specific aesthetic appearance. The complaint contextualizes the associated product as an "inflatable toddler travel bed with safety bumpers," suggesting a market for portable and safe children's bedding (Compl. ¶6).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an inflatable mattress, as depicted in its figures (D’543 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of a rectangular mattress base with rounded corners, surrounded by raised, continuous bumpers on all four sides. The two shorter end-bumpers are pillow-like, and the two longer side-bumpers are also raised to form a contained sleeping area. The top surface of the mattress interior features a series of parallel, longitudinal ribs ('543 Patent, Figs. 1, 6).
- Technical Importance: The design combines the portability of an inflatable mattress with integrated, four-sided bumpers, offering a distinct visual appearance for a product in the toddler travel bed market (Compl. ¶6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for an inflatable mattress with bumper, as shown and described." ('543 Patent, Claim).
- The essential ornamental features of the design "as shown" in the patent figures include:
- A generally rectangular shape with rounded corners.
- Raised, arcuate pillow members on the two shorter ends of the mattress.
- Raised, arcuate bumper members along the two longer sides of the mattress.
- A slight outward bulge in the side bumpers near their midpoint.
- A set of elongated, parallel, raised support sections on the top surface, recessed within the surrounding 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 bed for children, marketed and sold on Amazon and through retailers including Target and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶8, 27).
- The complaint alleges that the Regalo Mattress embodies the ornamental features of the '543 Patent to such a degree that an "ordinary observer would accidentally mistake Defendant REGALO’s brand for Plaintiff's brand because of the similar designs" (Compl. ¶8). Exhibit B to the complaint, an infringement opinion, provides side-by-side photographic comparisons of the accused product and the patent's design drawings to support this allegation (Compl., Ex. B, p. 2). A side-by-side comparison shows the top view of the patented design next to a photograph of the accused Regalo mattress (Compl., Ex. B, p. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement analysis for a design patent centers on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, in the context of the prior art, would believe the accused design to be the same as the patented design. The complaint incorporates by reference an infringement opinion that breaks down the comparison of ornamental features (Compl. ¶17; Ex. B).
D852,543 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim for the design "as shown") | Alleged Infringing Functionality (based on Compl. Ex. B) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for an inflatable mattress with bumper, comprising a combination of features including a rectangular shape with rounded corners. | The accused Regalo Mattress has a rectangular shape with rounded corners, allegedly creating a nearly identical top-view footprint. | ¶8; Ex. B, p. 3 | Figs. 6-7 |
| Arcuate pillow members extending upwards from an upper surface at the two ends of the mattress. | The accused mattress is alleged to have "nearly identical" raised pillow members at both ends. | ¶8; Ex. B, p. 3 | Figs. 1, 2, 6 |
| Arcuate bumper members extending upwards from the upper surface on the sides of the mattress. | The accused mattress features raised side bumpers that, in combination with the end pillows, create a four-sided enclosure similar to the patented design. | ¶8; Ex. B, p. 3 | Figs. 1, 4, 5, 6 |
| Elongated raised support sections that are substantially flat... and are positioned in a vertically recessed central portion of the mattress. | The accused mattress has elongated, raised support sections on its top surface that are recessed within the bumpers, creating a similar ribbed appearance. | ¶8; Ex. B, p. 3 | Figs. 1, 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement opinion incorporated into the complaint acknowledges two differences between the patented design and the accused product: (1) the patented design includes a handle feature not present on the accused product, and (2) the bottom surfaces are different (Compl., Ex. B, pp. 3-4). The analysis will raise the question of whether these differences are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression for the ordinary observer, or whether they are minor details that do not alter the substantially similar appearance.
- Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be one of visual comparison: when viewed in context, does the accused product's design appropriate the novelty of the patented design which gives it its commercial value? The complaint's infringement analysis argues that the bottom surface of the mattress is not observable during ordinary use, diminishing the significance of that difference (Compl., Ex. B, p. 4).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings, not by words. Formal construction of specific terms is rare. The central analysis is a comparison of the accused design to the claimed design as a whole.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for an inflatable mattress with bumper, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the entire scope of the patent right. The dispute will not turn on the definition of any single word, but on the overall visual impression created by the design "as shown" in the patent's figures. Practitioners will focus on comparing the figures of the '543 Patent to the accused Regalo Mattress to determine if they are substantially the same from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is not limited to any specific dimensions, materials, or colors, only the shape and configuration of the features shown in solid lines. This may support an interpretation that covers designs with similar overall shape and proportions, even with minor variations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific features depicted in the patent figures—including the proportions of the bumpers, the number and style of the ribs, and the presence of the handle element—define the limits of the design ('543 Patent, Figs. 1-7). A party could argue that every depicted feature is essential to the overall "as shown" design, and the absence of any one feature (like the handle) in the accused product avoids infringement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant actively encourages its customers, retailers, and distributors to promote, market, and sell the Regalo Mattress with its allegedly infringing ornamental features (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the '543 Patent as of at least January 8, 2024. This allegation is supported by an email, attached as Exhibit C, in which Defendant's president allegedly acknowledges receiving an infringement notice from Amazon based on the '543 Patent and states an intent to continue selling products "currently in transit" (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 20; Ex. C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of overall visual impression: Are the ornamental designs of the accused Regalo Mattress and the '543 Patent substantially the same in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The case may turn on whether acknowledged differences—specifically the lack of a handle and a different bottom surface on the accused product—are sufficient to create a distinct overall appearance, or are merely minor variations that do not defeat the infringement claim.
- A second key question will concern willfulness and the scope of damages: Assuming infringement is found, did the Defendant's conduct become willful as of January 8, 2024, the date it allegedly received notice of the patent? The resolution of this question, supported by the email evidence provided in the complaint, will determine Plaintiff's entitlement to enhanced damages and attorney fees, as well as the potential for disgorgement of Defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289.