Lovesac Co v. Burrow Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: The Lovesac Company (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Burrow, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DLA Piper LLP (US)
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00596, D. Del., 03/29/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of modular furniture infringes three U.S. patents related to the structure and assembly of reconfigurable seating.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the direct-to-consumer, modular furniture market, where designs that facilitate flat-pack shipping, tool-less assembly, and user reconfigurability are commercially significant.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on June 5, 2017, during the prosecution of its own patent application, Defendant submitted an Information Disclosure Statement to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office identifying Plaintiff’s ’778 Patent as prior art, an event that may be central to Plaintiff’s allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-06-10	Priority Date for ’778 and ’733 Patents
2010-11-12	Priority Date for ’623 Patent
2014-07-22	U.S. Patent No. 8,783,778 Issues
2017-06-05	Defendant allegedly cites ’778 Patent as prior art in own patent prosecution
2018-11-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,123,623 Issues
2018-12-18	U.S. Patent No. 10,154,733 Issues
2019-03-29	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,783,778 - "Mounting Platform For Modular Furniture Assembly"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses challenges with traditional furniture, which is often difficult to transport, expensive to ship due to its non-solid shape, difficult to reconfigure, and hard to clean. (’623 Patent, col. 2:8-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular furniture system comprising a horizontal base member (a seat) and a vertical transverse member (an arm or back). The ’778 Patent specifically discloses a "mounting platform" that serves a dual purpose: it physically couples the frame of the base member to the frame of the transverse member, and it acts as a universal interface for selectively mounting various types of feet, such as pegs or rollers. (’778 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶ 12). Figures 15a-15c, reproduced in the complaint, illustrate this concept, showing the mounting platform (400) as a distinct plate connecting the base (404) and transverse (408) members while also receiving a foot (430). (Compl. p. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables furniture to be shipped in standardized, stackable boxes and assembled by consumers without tools, while also allowing for post-purchase customization of the furniture's feet. (’623 Patent, col. 3:46-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 29).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A base member having a frame assembly.
  • A transverse member having a frame assembly and a height substantially greater than the base member.
  • A foot configured to contact a support surface.
  • A mounting platform configured to be mounted on both the base member and transverse member frame assemblies to couple them together.
  • The foot is selectively mounted on the mounting platform.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’778 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,123,623 - "Modular Furniture Assembly with Dual Couplers"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’778 Patent, the invention aims to solve problems of shipping, assembly, and reconfigurability associated with traditional furniture. (’623 Patent, col. 2:8-15).
• The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on the mechanism for connecting the base and transverse members. It discloses using two separate couplers, spaced vertically apart. A "first coupler" connects the higher portions of the base and transverse members, while a "second coupler" connects the lower portions, creating a more stable and robust assembly. (Compl. ¶ 39; ’623 Patent, col. 26:10-22).
• Technical Importance: By using dual couplers at different heights, the design provides enhanced stability against racking or wobbling forces, which can be a technical challenge in tool-less, user-assembled furniture. (’623 Patent, col. 13:13-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 40).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A base member providing a seating surface.
  • A transverse member with a height substantially greater than the base member.
  • A first coupler to selectively couple a higher portion of the base member to a higher portion of the transverse member.
  • A second coupler, spaced apart from the first, positioned lower than the first, to selectively couple a lower portion of the base member to a lower portion of the transverse member.
• The complaint states that the accused products infringe claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10, and 16-19. (Compl. ¶ 40).

U.S. Patent No. 10,154,733 - "Modular Furniture Assembly with Mounting Platform"

• Technology Synopsis: The ’733 Patent, which shares a specification and drawings with the ’778 Patent, describes both an apparatus and a method for forming a modular furniture assembly. The technology centers on a base member, a transverse member, and a mounting platform that is configured to couple the two members together and upon which a foot is mounted. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 50-51).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts apparatus claims 1-4, 7-12 and method claims 14-19, highlighting independent apparatus claim 1 and independent method claim 18 as examples. (Compl. ¶¶ 51-52).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s modular furniture products, and the assembly thereof by consumers following Defendant's instructions, infringe the ’733 patent’s claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Burrow’s modular furniture products, including the “Sofa,” “Loveseat,” “Armchair,” “King Sofa,” and “Chaise Sectional” seating products. (Compl. ¶ 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as modular furniture assemblies marketed and sold directly to consumers online, allowing customers to select customized and modified sectional furniture. (Compl. ¶ 17). A screenshot from the Burrow website shows various product configurations available for purchase. (Compl. p. 7). The complaint positions these products as being in "direct competition with Lovesac’s SACTIONALS® product line." (Compl. ¶ 17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits detailing infringement, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

’778 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’778 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 29). The narrative theory is that the accused products are modular furniture assemblies containing a base member, a transverse member with a greater height, and a foot, which are coupled together by a mounting platform on which the foot is selectively mounted, thereby embodying all elements of the claim. (Compl. ¶ 28).

’623 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’623 Patent. (Compl. ¶ 40). The infringement theory centers on the use of dual couplers. The complaint alleges the accused products have a first coupler and a second, spaced-apart coupler, with the second coupler positioned lower than the first, to respectively couple lower and higher portions of the base and transverse members together as claimed. (Compl. ¶ 39).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the ’778 and ’733 Patents will be the interpretation of a "mounting platform." The dispute may turn on whether the accused products use a structurally distinct component that performs the dual functions of coupling frames and mounting a foot, as depicted in the patent figures (e.g., Compl. p. 4, Fig. 15b, item 400), or if their design integrates these functions in a way that falls outside the claim's scope.
• Technical Questions: For the ’623 Patent, a key technical question will be whether the accused products’ connection mechanism constitutes "a first coupler" and "a second coupler, spaced apart from the first coupler." The analysis will require evidence of whether the accused products use two physically distinct and separate couplers or a single integrated connector that provides two points of contact.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "mounting platform" (’778 Patent, claim 1; ’733 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central novel element of the asserted claims of the ’778 and ’733 Patents. The outcome of the infringement analysis for these patents will likely depend on whether the component used in Burrow’s products to connect its furniture modules and attach feet is properly construed as a "mounting platform."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the platform as connecting the frame assemblies and acting "as a platform for receiving a variety of different types of feet." (’733 Patent, Abstract). This functional language may support an interpretation that covers any component performing these two roles, regardless of its specific form.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "mounting platform" (400) as a discrete, substantially flat plate with multiple apertures that is fastened to both the base and transverse members. (’733 Patent, Figs. 13a, 13b). This consistent depiction of a specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to a plate-like structure.

Term: "a first coupler" and "a second coupler, spaced apart" (’623 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The presence of two distinct, spaced-apart couplers is the key limitation distinguishing the ’623 Patent. Whether the accused product infringes will depend on whether its connection hardware is construed as meeting this "dual coupler" requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "coupler." The use of the indefinite article "a" before "first coupler" and "a second coupler" could suggest that the identity of the couplers is not limited to a specific structure, so long as there are two of them and they are spaced apart.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an exemplary "coupler 15" as an "elongate, U-shaped member." (’623 Patent, col. 12:46-51, Fig. 4). A defendant may argue that the claim requires two physically separate and distinct components, not merely two connection points on a single, larger piece of hardware.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the method claims of the ’733 Patent. This allegation is based on Burrow providing "Assembly Instructions" that allegedly "direct, instruct and encourage" customers to perform the steps of the claimed method, such as assembling a base member ("seat") and a transverse member ("arm rest") using a mounting platform with a foot ("leg"). (Compl. ¶ 54).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 42, 56). The primary basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the technology and the patents. The complaint specifically alleges that Defendant cited the ’778 Patent as prior art in an Information Disclosure Statement to the USPTO on June 5, 2017, during the prosecution of its own patent application. (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 38, 49).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused Burrow furniture utilize (1) a distinct, plate-like "mounting platform" that both couples frames and mounts a foot, as claimed in the ’778 and ’733 patents, and (2) two physically separate, vertically spaced "couplers" as claimed in the ’623 patent? Or, is its connection hardware structurally and functionally different in a way that avoids infringement?
• A second key issue will be the legal consequence of pre-suit knowledge: The complaint provides specific factual allegations that the Defendant was aware of the ’778 Patent nearly two years before the suit was filed. This raises a central question for trial: if infringement is found, was Defendant's conduct objectively reckless in light of this alleged knowledge, thereby justifying a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages?