Bote LLC v. Irocker Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bote, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Irocker Inc., Irockersup, LLC, Irocker Parent LLC (Delaware); Aaron John May (Individual)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker & Hostetler LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00376, M.D. Fla., 04/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Florida because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, including Defendant's business operations and alleged tortious conduct, occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s inflatable chair product infringes one design patent and one utility patent related to inflatable seating apparatuses, and further brings claims for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation against a former employee and his new employer.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to high-pressure, drop-stitch inflatable furniture, specifically portable chairs designed for stability and buoyancy in water-based recreational activities.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights that an individual defendant, Mr. Aaron May, is a named co-inventor on the asserted '806' utility patent from his time as Plaintiff's "Product Director." Plaintiff alleges that less than a year after his termination from Bote, Mr. May began working for a direct competitor, iRocker, in alleged breach of an employment agreement, and that iRocker's subsequent product infringes patents Mr. May helped develop.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-07-16	Mr. May's employment with Bote begins
2021-07-27	Priority date for '806 Patent
2021-12-17	Filing/Priority date for 'D726 Patent
2023-11-14	'D726 Patent issues
2024-06-21	Bote terminates Mr. May's employment
2024-11-12	'806 Patent issues
2025-03-XX	iRocker attends Palm Beach International Boat Show
2025-04-08	Complaint filed
2025-06-01	Expected ship date for accused iRocker Chair (pre-orders)

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,004,726 - Inflatable Chair

• Issued: November 14, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the unique, ornamental, and non-functional appearance of a manufactured article ('D726 Patent, Claim). The patent does not describe a technical problem but seeks to protect the novel visual characteristics of the inflatable chair design.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an inflatable chair, as depicted in its figures ('D726 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The design features a C-shaped body with two prominent, planar armrests connected by a rear cross-member, which supports a reclined, rectangular seat-back. The overall impression is one of a floating, low-profile armchair with distinct geometric surfaces.
• Technical Importance: In the competitive consumer market for recreational water products, a distinctive product appearance can be a significant source of brand identity and market differentiation (Compl. ¶2).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single claim is for "The ornamental design for the inflatable chair, as shown and described." ('D726 Patent, Claim). The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's eight figures.

U.S. Patent No. 12,137,806 - Inflatable Seating Apparatus

• Issued: November 12, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that traditional low-pressure inflatables lack rigidity and cannot maintain complex forms, while higher-pressure inflatables have been limited to simple spherical or cylindrical shapes ('806' Patent, col. 1:37-55). This created a need for inflatable furniture that could use "drop-stitch construction" to create rigid, planar surfaces suitable for a stable seating apparatus ('806' Patent, col. 1:55-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a seating apparatus comprising an inflatable seat-back and a separate, C-shaped inflatable arm-rest assembly that wraps around the rear of the seat-back ('806' Patent, col. 3:52-65). A non-buoyant, flexible sheet forms the seat-bottom and is connected to both the seat-back and the arm-rests via "suspension elements," creating a stable, semi-submerged seating position for the user in water ('806' Patent, col. 7:7-14; col. 6:1-8). This construction allows for a strong, buoyant frame while providing a comfortable and secure user experience.
• Technical Importance: The use of drop-stitch construction for the frame and a flexible, suspended seat allows for a product that is both portable when deflated and highly rigid and stable when inflated, an advance over prior art inflatable chairs ('806' Patent, col. 1:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('806' Patent, col. 7:1-21; Compl. ¶43).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • an inflatable seat-back comprising a rear surface
  • a seat-bottom interconnected to the seat-back
  • an inflatable arm-rest assembly comprising a first arm-rest, a second arm-rest, and a cross-member, where the rear surface of the seat-back is interconnected to the cross-member
  • a rearward suspension element interconnected between the seat-bottom and the seat-back
  • a first forward suspension element interconnected between the seat-bottom and the first arm-rest
  • a second forward suspension element interconnected between the seat-bottom and the second arm-rest
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but this is standard practice.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "iRocker Chair" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The iRocker Chair is described as a floating chair offered for sale on Defendant iRocker's website (Compl. ¶4, ¶37, ¶44). The complaint alleges it is a direct competitor to Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶2). The product was marketed at the 2025 Palm Beach International Boat Show and is available for pre-order, with an expected ship date of June 1, 2025 (Compl. ¶26, ¶29). A photograph from a social media post allegedly shows Defendant Mr. May, wearing iRocker-branded apparel and a microphone, presenting iRocker products at a boat show (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D1,004,726 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the iRocker Chair is a "mere colorable imitation" of the patented design and that its appearance is "substantially the same as that of the 'D726 Patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶35-36). The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in Exhibit D, which was not provided with the filing. Therefore, a detailed element-by-element comparison is not possible based on the complaint alone.

'806 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the iRocker Chair infringes at least claim 1 of the '806' patent (Compl. ¶43). It references a preliminary claim chart in Exhibit E, which was not provided with the filing. The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations mapping the technical components of the iRocker Chair to the elements of claim 1. The infringement theory rests on the general allegation that the accused product "incorporates one or more of the inventions claimed in the '806' Patent" (Compl. ¶42).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Design Scope ('D726 Patent): A central question for the design patent will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art in inflatable chairs, would be deceived into purchasing the iRocker Chair believing it to be Bote's design. The analysis will focus on the similarity of the overall visual impression, not on a side-by-side comparison of minor details.
  • Structural Correspondence ('806' Patent): For the utility patent, a primary dispute will be evidentiary: does the iRocker Chair actually contain every element of the asserted claim? Discovery will be needed to determine if the accused product has the specific "rearward suspension element" and "forward suspension elements" interconnected in the manner required by claim 1.
  • Technical Equivalence: Should direct infringement fail, a question may arise as to whether components of the iRocker Chair perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as any missing claim elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "suspension element" ('806 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears three times in claim 1 and is essential to the claimed structure that connects the seat-bottom to both the seat-back and the arm-rests. The definition of what constitutes a "suspension element" will be critical to proving infringement, as the complaint provides no detail on how the accused iRocker Chair's seat is supported.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a single form, describing it as potentially comprising "two membranes" or a "single membrane" ('806' Patent, col. 5:39-45). It also describes the "forward suspension elements" as comprising a "flexible sheet" (col. 5:48-49). This language may support a construction covering various forms of flexible connectors.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Fig. 5A, show the suspension elements (1600, 1650) as distinct, strap-like fabric components. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these depicted embodiments, rather than any structure that functionally suspends the seat.

The Term: "interconnected" ('806 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The claim requires that the seat-bottom, seat-back, and arm-rest assembly be "interconnected" in a specific relational structure. Whether this term requires a direct physical connection, or can also mean an indirect or functional linkage, will be a key question for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides multiple examples of connections, including "hingedly interconnected" and connections via a "living hinge or other flexible connection" ('806' Patent, col. 4:7-11). This suggests the inventors contemplated various methods of interconnection, not just a single, rigid type.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that in the context of the claims, "interconnected" implies a direct joining of the recited components. For example, the claim requires the "rearward suspension element" to be interconnected between the seat-bottom and the seat-back, which may be argued to exclude intermediate components not recited in the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶38, ¶45). The primary basis for this allegation is Defendant iRocker's hiring of Mr. May, who is a named inventor on the '806' patent and was Plaintiff's former "Product Director" with knowledge of its product designs and intellectual property strategy (Compl. ¶3, ¶17-19, ¶45). This is alleged to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint also asserts that its filing provides notice to support findings of ongoing, post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶38, ¶45).

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

1. Impact of the Inventor-Employee: A central issue will be the legal and factual significance of iRocker hiring Mr. May, a named inventor on the '806' patent. This fact pattern presents a compelling narrative for the plaintiff on the issues of trade secret misappropriation and, critically for the patent claims, provides a strong basis for alleging pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.
2. Design Similarity vs. Functionality: For the 'D726 design patent, the case will turn on the "ordinary observer" test. The key question for the court will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the iRocker Chair is substantially the same as the patented design, or if the similarities are dictated by the basic function of an inflatable floating chair, and thus unprotectable.
3. Evidentiary Proof of Structure: For the '806' utility patent, the core question is one of "structural correspondence." Given the lack of technical detail in the complaint, the case will depend on evidence developed in discovery to prove whether the accused iRocker Chair is built with the specific combination of inflatable components and "suspension elements" required by the asserted claims.