DCT
1:24-cv-00958
Hangzhou Qianmai Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Bearaby Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hangzhou Qianmai Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a YNM (China)
- Defendant: Bearaby Inc. (Delaware) and Somnos, LLC d/b/a Bearaby, LLC (Wyoming)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP; Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP
- Case Identification: Hangzhou Qianmai Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. v. [Bearaby Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/bearaby-inc), 1:24-cv-00958, D. Del., 08/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Bearaby Inc. is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the district, and both defendants transact business and sell the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its weighted blankets do not infringe three of Defendants' patents related to the construction of weighted blankets using a proprietary layered yarn.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns weighted blankets designed for deep pressure therapy, a product segment with applications in wellness for managing anxiety and sensory disorders.
- Key Procedural History: The lawsuit follows pre-suit enforcement actions by Defendants, who allegedly used Amazon's intellectual property complaint system and its Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program to accuse Plaintiff's products of infringing the '480 Patent. In subsequent correspondence, Defendants also identified the '708 and '199 Patents as being related. These actions, which Plaintiff alleges led to the temporary removal of its products from the marketplace, form the basis for the "actual controversy" required for a declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-11-16 | Patent Priority Date ('708, '199, '480 Patents) |
| 2020-11-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,835,708 Issues |
| 2022-03-01 | U.S. Patent No. 11,260,199 Issues |
| 2023-11-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,806,480 Issues |
| 2024-03-26 | Defendant accuses Plaintiff of infringement via Amazon notice |
| 2024-03-26 | Plaintiff contacts Defendant to resolve dispute |
| 2024-04-02 | Defendant's counsel identifies '708 and '199 Patents in correspondence |
| 2024-04-10 | Start of period of additional Amazon notices against Plaintiff |
| 2024-05-08 | Plaintiff submits first non-infringement affidavit to Amazon |
| 2024-05-23 | End of period of additional Amazon notices against Plaintiff |
| 2024-06-06 | Plaintiff submits second non-infringement affidavit to Amazon |
| 2024-07-12 | Plaintiff sends non-infringement letter to Defendant |
| 2024-08-01 | Defendant initiates Amazon APEX proceeding against Plaintiff |
| 2024-08-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,835,708 - "Layered Yarn and Weighted Blanket for Deep Pressure Therapy"
Issued November 17, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional weighted blankets as suffering from several drawbacks: they require added weights like plastic pellets or glass beads held in stitched pockets, which can limit breathability, shift unevenly, and make the blanket overly thick and less conformable to a user's body (’708 Patent, col. 1:18-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a blanket constructed from an inherently heavy "layered yarn," which eliminates the need for separate fillers (’708 Patent, col. 2:56-59). This yarn is composed of an "outer tube" that contains "a plurality of inner layers of material" (’708 Patent, col. 10:59-63). The yarn itself is sufficiently weighted and is then interlooped (e.g., knitted or crocheted) to form a blanket that provides even weight distribution and improved airflow (’708 Patent, col. 4:4-15; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This design aims to produce a weighted blanket with more uniform weight distribution, better breathability, and improved body-contouring ability compared to traditional designs that rely on pockets of loose filler material (’708 Patent, col. 4:4-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all claims and specifically recites independent claims 1, 12, 17, and 22 (Compl. ¶¶24, 25).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A deep pressure therapy blanket comprising a piece of weighted material;
- The material comprising a length of layered yarn with interlooped loops;
- The layered yarn comprising an outer tube defining a conduit, with the outer tube forming the interlooped loops;
- A plurality of inner layers of material disposed within the conduit of the outer tube; and
- The length of layered yarn, by itself, being sufficiently weighted to effectuate deep pressure therapy.
- The complaint seeks a judgment of non-infringement as to all claims of the patent, necessarily including all dependent claims (Compl. ¶30).
U.S. Patent No. 11,260,199 - "Layered Yarn and Weighted Blanket for Deep Pressure Therapy"
Issued March 1, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’708 Patent, this patent addresses the same problems of limited breathability, uneven weight distribution, and poor conformability in conventional weighted blankets (’199 Patent, col. 1:30-55).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is structurally similar to that of the ’708 Patent, involving a blanket formed by interlooping an inherently heavy yarn (’199 Patent, Abstract). The key claimed distinction is in the composition of the yarn's core. Instead of "a plurality of inner layers," Claim 1 of the ’199 Patent recites "a fiber material" arranged within the conduit of the outer tube, which is then weighted by both the tube and the fiber material to provide the therapeutic effect (’199 Patent, col. 10:13-24).
- Technical Importance: This patent appears to broaden the claimed internal structure of the weighted yarn, potentially covering a wider range of filler materials than the "layered" structure described in the parent patent.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all claims and specifically recites independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶¶32, 33).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A deep pressure therapy blanket comprising a weighted material;
- The material comprising a length of layered yarn with interlooped loops;
- The layered yarn comprising an outer tube defining a conduit, with the outer tube arranged to form the interlooped loops;
- A fiber material arranged within the conduit of the outer tube; and
- The length of layered yarn being sufficiently weighted by the outer tube and the fiber material to effectuate deep pressure therapy.
- The complaint seeks a judgment of non-infringement as to all claims of the patent (Compl. ¶38).
U.S. Patent No. 11,806,480 - "Layered Yarn and Weighted Blanket for Deep Pressure Therapy"
Issued November 7, 2023
- Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same patent family, the ’480 Patent also addresses the shortcomings of traditional weighted blankets by claiming a blanket made of a single layer of interlooped yarn (’480 Patent, col. 9:62-64). The yarn is claimed as comprising an "outer tube" formed from a "sheet of fabric" and a "filling" arranged inside, with the final blanket having a weight between 5 and 45 pounds (’480 Patent, col. 10:1-12).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all claims and specifically recites independent claims 1, 25, and 27 (Compl. ¶¶40, 41).
- Accused Features: Plaintiff's "YNM's Weighted Blankets" are the subject of the declaratory judgment action for this patent (Compl. ¶43).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The products for which Plaintiff seeks a declaration of non-infringement are its "YNM's Weighted Blankets" (Compl. ¶6). The complaint identifies several specific products by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs), including B09M83W1PY and B0C2GXY7VF (Compl. ¶¶28, 36, 44).
Functionality and Market Context
- The products are weighted blankets sold to consumers through various online retail channels, including the Plaintiff's own website, Walmart.com, and Amazon.com (Compl. ¶6). The complaint does not describe the specific technical construction of the blankets; rather, it makes conclusory statements that the blankets lack the features required by the asserted patents' claims (Compl. ¶¶27, 35, 43).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following tables summarize the Plaintiff's (YNM's) asserted basis for non-infringement for representative claims.
'708 Patent Non-Infringement Contentions
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of inner layers of material disposed within the conduit of the outer tube and extending longitudinally from the first end to the second end | Plaintiff alleges its weighted blankets do not include this claimed limitation. | ¶27 | col. 5:1-4 |
| wherein the length of layered yarn, by itself, is configured and sufficiently weighted to effectuate deep pressure therapy to a person when the deep pressure therapy blanket lies over a person's body | Plaintiff alleges its weighted blankets do not practice this claimed limitation. | ¶27 | col. 4:46-54 |
'199 Patent Non-Infringement Contentions
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a deep pressure therapy blanket | Plaintiff alleges its weighted blankets do not include the claimed limitation of "a deep pressure therapy blanket." | ¶35 | col. 1:15-25 |
| wherein the length of layered yarn is sufficiently weighted by the outer tube and the fiber material to effectuate deep pressure therapy to a person when the deep pressure therapy blanket lies over a person's body | Plaintiff alleges its weighted blankets do not practice this claimed limitation. | ¶35 | col. 9:18-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Questions: The central dispute is factual: what is the physical construction of the yarn used in YNM's weighted blankets? The complaint offers only a blanket denial of infringement without providing alternative details about its products' construction. The case will require a factual comparison between the products and the claim limitations, likely involving product teardowns and expert analysis.
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises questions about the scope of the terms defining the yarn's internal structure across the patent family, such as "plurality of inner layers of material" (’708 Patent), "a fiber material" (’199 Patent), and "a filling" (’480 Patent). The distinctions between these terms may be critical to the non-infringement analysis for each respective patent.
- Functional Questions: A key question is whether the yarn in YNM's products is "by itself... sufficiently weighted" as required by the ’708 Patent. This limitation goes to the core inventive concept of creating weight from the yarn's structure rather than from external fillers, and the plaintiff's denial suggests a potential mismatch in how the products achieve their weight.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a plurality of inner layers of material" ('708 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core of the yarn structure in the ’708 Patent, and YNM explicitly denies that its products meet this limitation (Compl. ¶27). Its construction will be dispositive for infringement of the ’708 Patent, as it distinguishes the invention from a yarn with a solid core or a loose, non-layered fill.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the layers "may be formed by folding at least one inner sheet," which suggests folding is an exemplary, but not necessarily exclusive, method of creating "layers" (’708 Patent, col. 5:2-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's embodiments and figures consistently depict the "inner layers" as distinct, folded, or rolled sheets of fabric (’708 Patent, Figs. 3, 5A-5E, col. 5:15-16). A party could argue that the term requires multiple, discrete, sheet-like structures and does not read on a simple bundle of loose fibers or a solid core.
The Term: "a fiber material" ('199 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term replaced "a plurality of inner layers" from the parent '708 patent, suggesting an intentional change in scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will be central to determining whether the '199 patent covers constructions that the '708 patent does not, and whether YNM's products fall within that scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The patent claims that the fiber material can be "a textile material, a spun fiber, and/or a woven fiber," suggesting it could encompass a wide variety of fills, including loose batting or other non-layered materials (’199 Patent, col. 10:20-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While facially broad, the term exists in the context of the overall invention. A party could argue that "fiber material" must be interpreted in light of the specification's focus on creating a specific, substantially homogenous weight distribution along the yarn's length, potentially excluding materials that would bunch or shift within the outer tube. The prosecution history, if it shows arguments distinguishing this term from the parent's "inner layers," could further limit its scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff has not infringed any claim of the patents-in-suit either directly or indirectly (Compl. ¶¶24, 32, 40). No specific facts related to indirect infringement are at issue beyond this general denial.
- Willful Infringement: This section is not applicable, as the complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement. Plaintiff does, however, request that the case be declared "exceptional" to recover attorney fees, based on Defendants' alleged "baseless" pre-suit enforcement activities via the Amazon platform (Compl. p. 12, ¶E; ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and differentiation: how will the court construe the evolving terminology for the yarn's internal structure across the three related patents—from "a plurality of inner layers" ('708) to "a fiber material" ('199) to "a filling" ('480)? The outcome may depend on whether these terms are viewed as distinct, overlapping, or synonymous, which will define the scope of each patent.
- The primary evidentiary question will be one of structural comparison: what is the actual physical construction of the yarn in the accused YNM blankets? As the complaint provides only conclusory denials, the case will turn on a detailed factual investigation to determine if YNM's products contain the specific yarn structures required by the patent claims as construed by the court.
- A key procedural question will be the justiciability and consequence of pre-suit conduct: did Defendants' enforcement actions on Amazon's platform create a sufficient "actual controversy" for all three patents to support this declaratory judgment action, and could the nature of those actions render the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, potentially shifting attorney's fees?