DCT

1:25-cv-04484

Flated LLC v. Zenliquidator LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04484, N.D. Ga., 08/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business in the state, and its acts of infringement allegedly occur there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Inflatable Bed Topper products infringe a patent related to inflatable vehicle accessories, specifically truck bed shells.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns inflatable truck toppers made from "drop-stitch" material, which allows for a rigid, high-pressure structure that can be deflated for compact storage, offering an alternative to traditional heavy, rigid shells.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant is liquidating products that are the subject of a separate, pending infringement lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against a third party, I3 Enterprises Inc., in the Central District of California.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-09-22 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 12,077,977
2024-09-03 U.S. Patent No. 12,077,977 Issued
2025-08-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,077,977 - “Inflatable Vehicle Accessories”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,077,977, “Inflatable Vehicle Accessories,” issued September 3, 2024 (’977 Patent). (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problems associated with conventional vehicle accessories like truck shells, which are typically rigid, heavy, and cumbersome, making them difficult to mount, remove, and store when not in use (Compl. ¶10; ’977 Patent, col. 1:58-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a vehicle accessory, such as a truck shell, constructed from inflatable "drop-stitch" walls. This material allows the structure to be inflated to high pressure to form a rigid and durable shell, but also deflated, rolled, or folded into a compact form for easy storage and transport (’977 Patent, col. 2:10-23). The truck shell design specifically comprises inflatable front and side walls that mount to a truck bed to create a covered space (’977 Patent, col. 4:58-65).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides the structural integrity of a traditional hard shell while offering the portability and storability of a soft-sided accessory, overcoming a significant trade-off in the field (’977 Patent, col. 2:30-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
    • An inflatable truck shell device for mounting to a truck bed, comprising:
    • a front wall having two sides,
    • a sidewall attached to each of the two sides to form a first space,
    • each sidewall having a rear end,
    • and a shell top extending over the first space to the rear ends;
    • an open rear between the rear end of each sidewall;
    • at least one fastener on each sidewall for attaching the sidewalls to a truck;
    • wherein the front wall and sidewalls are each formed of drop-stitch material; and
    • wherein the first space has an open bottom for exposing the first space to the truck bed of the truck. (’977 Patent, col. 6:1-10).
  • The complaint notes that Defendant infringes "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are "numerous variations of its Inflatable Bed Topper product" offered for sale on Defendant’s website, Milesrunner.com (Compl. ¶14). A specific example identified is the "Milesrunner for 2015-2025 Ford F150 5.5 ft Bed Inflatable Bed Topper" (Compl. Fig. 01).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is described as an inflatable truck shell advertised as "inflatable" and designed to mount on a truck bed (Compl. p. 7). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused product installed on a pickup truck, showing its general form and function (Compl. Fig. 01, p. 5). The product allegedly includes a front wall, two sidewalls, a top, and an open rear, and utilizes fasteners to attach to the truck (Compl. p. 7).
  • Plaintiff alleges it is the "leader in the nascent market for inflatable bed toppers" and that Defendant's infringement is causing irreparable harm (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

  • The complaint provides a claim chart mapping features of the "Zenliquidator Inflatable Bed Topper" to the elements of Claim 1 of the ’977 Patent. A design drawing from Defendant's materials is used to identify components of the accused product (Compl. Fig. 02, p. 6).

’977 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An inflatable truck shell device for mounting to a truck bed, comprising: Zenliquidator advertises its truck shell as "inflatable." ¶14; p. 7 col. 4:58-60
a front wall having two sides, Front wall 4 has two sides. p. 7 col. 4:60-61
a sidewall attached to each of the two sides to form a first space, Sidewalls 1 attach to the two sides of the front wall to form a first space. p. 7 col. 4:60-62
each sidewall having a rear end, Rear window 3 attaches to the rear end of each sidewall. p. 7 col. 4:61-62
and a shell top extending over the first space to the rear ends; Top 1 also extends over the first space to the rear ends of the sidewalls. p. 7 col. 4:65-5:1
an open rear between the rear end of each sidewall; The space between the rear ends of the side walls is an open rear. p. 7 col. 4:61-62
at least one fastener on each sidewall for attaching the sidewalls to a truck; Fastener portions of the side 1 interacting with side fixing rails 6 and clamps 7 attach the sidewalls to a truck. p. 7 col. 4:63-65
wherein the front wall and sidewalls are each formed of drop-stitch material; Zenliquidator would use drop-stitch fabric because of its use on inflatable products. Drop-stitch fabric withstands high air pressure. p. 7 col. 4:58-60
wherein the first space has an open bottom for exposing the first space to the truck bed of the truck. The drawing shows an open bottom. p. 7 col. 4:58-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of the "drop-stitch material" limitation by stating that Defendant "would use drop-stitch fabric because of its use on inflatable products" (Compl. p. 7). This raises an evidentiary question as to what proof Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate the actual material composition of the accused product, as the allegation appears to be based on inference rather than direct analysis.
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "at least one fastener on each sidewall." The complaint alleges this is met by "side fixing rails 6 and clamps 7" that attach the sidewalls to the truck (Compl. p. 7). A potential point of dispute is whether this system of separate rails and clamps, which interact with the sidewall, constitutes a "fastener on each sidewall" as the claim language may be interpreted to require the fastener to be more directly integrated with the sidewall itself.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "drop-stitch material"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core technological basis of the invention. The infringement allegation for this element is inferential, making its precise construction critical. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine whether the accused product's material, once identified, falls within the scope of the claims.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a general, functional definition: material that "joins two pieces of polyester woven support fabric with thousands of fine, flexible polyester threads" to form a strong, inflatable unit (’977 Patent, col. 3:25-29).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes specific characteristics of the material, such as being able to be inflated to pressures of "20 psi (≈138 kPa)" and being sealed with "PVC tape," which could be argued as required features of the claimed material (’977 Patent, col. 3:35-36; col. 4:49-51).

  • The Term: "at least one fastener on each sidewall"

  • Context and Importance: The physical arrangement of the attachment mechanism is a key limitation. Infringement will turn on whether the accused product's separate rail-and-clamp system meets the positional requirement of being "on each sidewall."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the truck shell embodiment uses "Clips 156 on straps 158" to attach the shell to the truck, suggesting "fastener" can encompass a multi-component assembly (’977 Patent, col. 4:63-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the phrase "on each sidewall" requires the fastener to be directly affixed to or integrated into the sidewall structure, rather than being a separate component (the rail) to which the sidewall is subsequently attached.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement. It does, however, request a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which can lead to an award of attorney fees (Compl. p. 8, Prayer for Relief ¶4). The factual basis for this request appears to be the allegation that Defendant is "liquidating product that is the subject of Flated's infringement allegations against I3 in a case pending in the Central District of California," which may be argued as evidence of knowledge of the infringing nature of the activity (Compl. ¶16).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of material composition: what proof will establish that the accused "Inflatable Bed Topper" is constructed from the claimed "drop-stitch material," moving beyond the complaint's inferential allegation that Defendant "would use" such fabric?
  • A central issue of claim construction will be the locational scope of the attachment means: can the phrase "fastener on each sidewall" be construed to read on the accused product's system, where separate fixing rails and clamps are used to secure the sidewalls to the truck bed?
  • A further question relates to knowledge and intent: what effect will the allegation that Defendant is liquidating product from a third party subject to a separate infringement suit have on potential damages or a finding of an exceptional case?