DCT
1:22-cv-01256
Hills Point Industries LLC v. Just for Love LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hills Point Industries LLC d/b/a Gorilla Commerce (Delaware)
- Defendant: Just Fur Love LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01256, D. Del., 09/22/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper" products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to an apparatus for preventing rug corner curling.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the common problem of area rug corners curling upwards, which creates both an aesthetic issue and a tripping hazard.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute arose from Defendant Just Fur Love's complaint submitted via the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express Procedure, which led to the de-listing of Plaintiff Gorilla Commerce's products. After an appeal and reinstatement, the complaint was re-asserted by the Defendant, and a licensing demand was sent. This declaratory judgment action appears to be a direct response to those enforcement and licensing efforts.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-11-17 | ’013 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-10-12 | ’013 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-07-06 | Defendant files initial patent complaint with Amazon |
| 2022-09-14 | Defendant sends licensing demand to Plaintiff |
| 2022-09-19 | Plaintiff's products reinstated on Amazon after appeal |
| 2022-09-19 | Defendant re-asserts patent complaint with Amazon |
| 2022-09-22 | Plaintiff files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,141,013 - “Apparatus to Prevent Curling of a Rug Corner,” issued October 12, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the tendency for the corners of area rugs to curl upwardly away from the floor surface over time, which is described as both "visually unattractive" and a "safety hazard" that can cause people to trip and fall (’013 Patent, col. 1:33-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that attaches to the underside of a rug corner to keep it flat. The core of the solution is a "rigid and planar V-shaped body" that is adhered to the rug corner (’013 Patent, col. 1:47-48). This body, by virtue of its rigidity, "maintains the rug corner in a flat condition" (’013 Patent, col. 1:57-59). The apparatus also includes an elastomeric bottom layer to prevent the rug from slipping on the floor (’013 Patent, col. 2:36-40). The V-shape is designed to align with the two edges of a rectangular rug corner (’013 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention offers a mechanical solution intended to be more robust than simple tape by using a structural element (the rigid body) to physically prevent the curling deformation of the rug material (’013 Patent, col. 2:42-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
The declaratory judgment action is limited to Claim 1 of the ’013 Patent (Compl. ¶1). The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A rigid and planar body with a planar top and bottom.
- An adhesive layer on at least a portion of the body's top.
- A removable protective cover over the adhesive.
- An elastomer layer attached to the body's bottom, configured to contact the floor.
- The body and elastomer layer form a laminate structure.
- Whereby, upon adhesion to the rug corner, the "body maintains the rug corner in a flat condition."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "Gorilla Grip Rug Gripper" products sold by Plaintiff Gorilla Commerce (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products not as rigid, V-shaped corner pieces, but as "individual strips" that are "highly flexible and non-rigid" (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24). They are designed to be adhered to the sides of a rug to hold it in place on hard-surface floors (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges these products are sold on Amazon.com and represent a "substantial portion" of the plaintiff's sales (Compl. ¶16).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The table below summarizes the plaintiff's arguments for why its product does not meet the limitations of Claim 1.
’013 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per Plaintiff's Complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rigid and planar body... | The accused products are described as "individual strips" whose body is "highly flexible and non-rigid." | ¶¶22-23 | col. 3:41-42 |
| wherein... said body is adhered to the rug corner by said adhesive whereby said body maintains the rug corner in a flat condition | The complaint alleges that because the accused products are flexible, non-rigid strips, they "will not themselves 'maintain the rug corner in a flat position' when adhered to the sides of a rug." | ¶26 | col. 4:56-59 |
| wherein the body and the elastomer layer are a laminate structure | The complaint alleges the accused products do not meet the limitation for a "laminate structure" as described in the patent. | ¶26 | col. 4:60-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute appears to be definitional. Does the claim term "rigid and planar body" read on a product described as "highly flexible and non-rigid"? The plaintiff argues it does not, contrasting its "individual strips" with the "rigid and planar V-shaped body" described as the "present invention" in the patent's specification (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25; ’013 Patent, col. 1:47-48).
- Technical Questions: A core technical question is whether the accused product functions in the manner required by the claim. The claim requires that the "body" itself "maintains the rug corner in a flat condition". The complaint suggests its flexible strips do not achieve this function through their own structural properties, but rather by adhering the rug to the floor, which may be a different mechanism of action (Compl. ¶26).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "rigid and planar body"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute. The plaintiff's entire non-infringement theory rests on its products being "flexible and non-rigid," and therefore not meeting this limitation (Compl. ¶23). The construction of "rigid" will likely be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patentee (defendant) may argue that "rigid" is a relative term and does not require absolute inflexibility. The term is not explicitly defined with a quantitative measure of stiffness. Claim 1 itself does not require the "V-shape" that is heavily featured in the specification, potentially allowing for other shapes that are still "rigid."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plaintiff will likely point to the specification's repeated linkage of "rigid" to the apparatus's core function. The specification states, "The plastic layer 28 is preferably made of a rigid plastic material and maintains the entire body 12 in a rigid form" (’013 Patent, col. 2:42-44). The Summary of the Invention explicitly describes "the apparatus of the present invention" as comprising a "rigid and planar V-shaped body" (’013 Patent, col. 1:47-48). This consistent description may support an interpretation that limits the scope of "rigid body" to a structure that can, on its own, prevent a rug corner from curling.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "rigid and planar body", as used in the patent, be construed to cover the allegedly "highly flexible and non-rigid" strips of the accused product? The court's interpretation will hinge on whether the term is limited by the specification's consistent description of a structurally rigid, V-shaped device.
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional distinction: Does the accused flexible strip "maintain the rug corner in a flat condition" through its own structural properties, as the claim requires for the "body", or does it function merely as an adhesive that tacks the rug to the floor? Proving a fundamental difference in the mechanism of action would strongly support a finding of non-infringement.