DCT
3:23-cv-00032
Wearwell LLC v. M+a Matting LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wearwell, LLC (Tennessee)
- Defendant: M+A Matting, LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stites & Harbison, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00032, N.D. Ga., 05/15/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because the Defendant is a Georgia limited liability company with its headquarters and principal place of business located within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s anti-fatigue modular and linkable floor mats infringe two patents related to an interlocking mat design that incorporates a sponge insert for improved cushioning.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to commercial and industrial anti-fatigue floor matting, a market where products aim to balance ergonomic comfort for standing workers with the durability and modularity required in demanding environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges an extensive pre-suit notification history. Plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of infringement letter regarding the ’648 Patent in February 2022, which Defendant acknowledged. Following a response from Defendant that reportedly proposed a design change, Plaintiff sent a subsequent notice letter in September 2022 regarding the soon-to-be-issued ’037 Patent, which Defendant also allegedly acknowledged. This history forms the basis for the complaint's willfulness allegations.
I.I. Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-12-15 | Earliest Priority Date for ’648 and ’037 Patents |
| 2021-11-16 | ’648 Patent Issued |
| 2022-02-10 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant regarding ’648 Patent |
| 2022-09-15 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant regarding soon-to-be-issued ’037 Patent |
| 2022-09-27 | ’037 Patent Issued |
| 2023-05-15 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
II.I. U.S. Patent No. 11,174,648, Interlocking Modular Mat With Sponge Insert, issued November 16, 2021
II.I.i. The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a perceived deficiency in conventional modular floor mats, which often have underlying support structures that create a "rigid or hard feel," potentially increasing user fatigue over long periods of standing (ʼ648 Patent, col. 1:62-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular mat assembly comprising a primary mat body and a separate sponge insert (’648 Patent, Abstract). The mat body has a downward-projecting peripheral "wall structure" that forms a cavity on its underside. A sponge insert, designed to be taller than the depth of this cavity, is placed within it. In an unloaded state, the mat rests on the softer sponge insert, which extends below the harder wall structure. When a user's weight is applied, the sponge compresses, allowing the more rigid wall structure and connectors to contact the floor, thereby providing structural support and maintaining the integrity of connections to adjacent mats (’648 Patent, col. 4:40-50; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This design seeks to combine the ergonomic cushioning of soft foam mats with the structural integrity and configurable nature of interlocking modular matting systems (’648 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
II.I.ii. Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A mat body with a top portion, a downwardly extending wall structure forming a cavity, and male/female connectors.
- A sponge insert sized to fit within the cavity, with the wall structure and connectors located "laterally outside" the insert.
- The sponge insert has a height dimension causing its bottom portion to extend "vertically beyond the bottom surfaces" of the wall structure and connectors.
- This configuration results in a specific two-stage function: (1) when no weight is applied, the sponge insert rests on the surface while the wall structure and connectors are "spaced from the surface," and (2) when weight is applied, "portions of the bottom surfaces of the wall structure and the male and female connectors" make contact with the surface to "maintain a structural integrity."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1," which may suggest an intent to assert other claims later in the proceedings (Compl. ¶38).
II.II. U.S. Patent No. 11,454,037, Interlocking Modular Mat With Sponge Insert, issued September 27, 2022
II.II.i. The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’648 Patent, the ’037 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the need for a modular mat that provides a "softer feel" for user comfort while retaining the structural integrity necessary for interlocking systems (’037 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The described solution is identical to that of the ’648 Patent, utilizing a mat body with an underside cavity and an oversized sponge insert to create a cushioned feel that gives way to a rigid support structure under load (’037 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-50). The primary distinction between the patents lies in the specific language of the asserted claims.
- Technical Importance: The technical goal is the same as the ’648 Patent: to merge the benefits of cushioned anti-fatigue mats with the versatility of modular tiles (’037 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
II.II.ii. Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include a mat body, cavity, and an oversized sponge insert, similar to the ’648 Patent.
- The key distinction is in the functional "such that" clauses, which are framed differently: (1) "the sponge insert providing a more cushioned feel when a weight from a mat user is applied," and (2) "when a weight from a mat user is applied over the wall structure and the male and female connectors, a structural integrity... and a connection with an adjacent mat is maintained."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶54).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
III.I. Product Identification
The accused products are the "Hog Heaven III Comfort Linkable Mats" and "Hog Heaven III Comfort Modular Tiles" (the "Accused Mats") (Compl. ¶14).
III.II. Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Mats are "anti-fatigue linking and modular floor mats" that include a "floor mat body with a cushion insert formed in a cavity on the underside" and possess interlocking edges (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
- The complaint includes a marketing image of the accused "Hog Heaven III" products, showing modular tiles and linkable mats, including a call-out that describes a "unique locking mechanism" (Compl. p. 16). According to marketing materials cited in the complaint, the mats feature a "High-density, closed-cell nitrile rubber cushion" that is "molded, not glued, to the nitrile rubber surface" (Compl. p. 16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
IV.I. ’648 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mat body, the mat body having a top portion, a wall structure extending downwardly from a peripheral edge of the top portion, and male and female connectors ... the wall structure forming a cavity with an underside of the top portion | The Accused Mats are alleged to consist of a mat body with a top portion, a downwardly extending wall structure, male and female connectors, and a cavity. | ¶38.b | col. 4:5-10 |
| a sponge insert sized to fit within the cavity ... wherein the wall structure and each of the male and female connectors are all laterally outside of the sponge insert | The Accused Mats are alleged to have a sponge insert that fits within the cavity, with the structural elements positioned laterally outside of it. | ¶38.c | col. 4:11-17 |
| the sponge insert having a sponge insert height dimension such that when in the cavity, a bottom portion of the sponge insert extends vertically beyond the bottom surfaces of each of the wall structure and the male and female connectors | The sponge insert of the Accused Mats is alleged to be taller than the surrounding wall structure and connectors, causing it to extend below them. | ¶38.c | col. 4:22-28 |
| the bottom portion of the sponge insert rests on a surface and the bottom surfaces of the wall structure and male and female connectors are spaced from the surface when no weight is applied to the mat | The Accused Mats are alleged to rest on the sponge insert when unloaded, with the wall structure and connectors held off the ground. | ¶38.d | col. 4:40-46 |
| portions of the bottom surfaces of the wall structure and the male and female connectors making contact with the surface when a weight from a mat user is applied ... so as to maintain a structural integrity ... and a connection with an adjacent mat | When a user stands on the mat, the Accused Mats' wall structure and connectors allegedly make contact with the surface to provide support. The complaint references an image of the accused product in support of this allegation. | ¶38.e, p. 16 | col. 5:1-6 |
IV.II. ’037 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mat body... a wall structure extending downwardly... and male and female connectors... the wall structure forming a cavity | The Accused Mats are alleged to consist of a mat body with a wall structure, connectors, and a cavity. | ¶54.b | col. 4:5-10 |
| a sponge insert sized to fit within the cavity... wherein the wall structure and each of the male and female connectors are all laterally outside of the sponge insert... [and] extends vertically beyond the bottom surfaces | The Accused Mats are alleged to have an oversized sponge insert positioned within the cavity, with structural elements outside it. | ¶54.c (first) | col. 4:11-28 |
| the sponge insert providing a more cushioned feel when a weight from a mat user is applied to the top portion and sponge insert | The sponge insert of the Accused Mats is alleged to provide a cushioned feel under a user's weight. | ¶54.c (second) | col. 4:41-42 |
| when a weight from a mat user is applied over the wall structure and the male and female connectors, a structural integrity of the wall structure and male and female connectors and a connection with an adjacent mat is maintained | When a user stands on the mat, the Accused Mats allegedly maintain structural integrity and their connection to adjacent mats. The complaint supports this with a marketing image. | ¶54.d, p. 22 | col. 4:42-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural and Functional Questions: A central technical question will be whether the Accused Mats operate in the specific two-stage manner required by claim 1 of the ’648 Patent (i.e., whether the rigid structures are "spaced from the surface" when unloaded and make contact only under load). The complaint relies on marketing materials rather than technical diagrams or measurements of the accused product to support these allegations (Compl. ¶¶38.e, 54.d).
- Scope Questions: For the ’037 Patent, the dispute may focus on the construction of its broader, functional limitations. The parties may contest the objective meaning and evidentiary requirements for terms like "providing a more cushioned feel" and whether "structural integrity... is maintained" is functionally distinct from the more specific structural limitations of the ’648 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "sponge insert"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted claims of both patents. Its construction is critical because the patent depicts the "insert" as a separate component placed into the mat body's cavity (’648 Patent, Fig. 6), whereas the complaint cites marketing materials describing the accused product's cushion as being "molded, not glued, to the nitrile rubber surface" (Compl. p. 16). The outcome may depend on whether a co-molded, permanently integrated layer can be considered an "insert."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require only that the insert be "sized to fit within the cavity." The specification notes the insert can be held by "a press fit" or with an "adhesive" (’648 Patent, col. 6:17-22), which could be argued to encompass permanent bonding methods like co-molding.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "insert" itself, combined with the exploded-view diagram (Fig. 6), suggests a distinct component. The specification also describes the insert and mat body as potentially being made of different materials with different resiliency (’648 Patent, col. 5:47-54), which could support an argument that they must be separate elements.
The Term: "spaced from the surface when no weight is applied"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is a key differentiator of claim 1 of the ’648 Patent, defining a specific, measurable physical state of the mat when unloaded. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving infringement requires demonstrating this precise structural arrangement, which is not explicitly shown or described for the accused product in the complaint.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent provides clear support for this limitation, explaining its purpose is to "give the modular mat... a more cushioned feel" by ensuring it initially rests on the softer sponge (’648 Patent, col. 4:40-42). Figure 5 explicitly shows the extension (40) creating this space. A dispute would center on factual evidence of whether the accused mat exhibits any such measurable spacing or if its structural elements rest on the surface at all times.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that M+A, through its website, instruction manuals, marketing materials, and promotional activities, instructs and encourages its customers and distributors to use the Accused Mats in a manner that directly infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 58).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge from specific notice letters. The complaint alleges M+A had knowledge of the ’648 Patent and the infringement allegations since at least February 23, 2022, and of the ’037 Patent since at least September 30, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 53). The complaint further cites language from its own notice letter stating that continued sales would be considered "knowing and willful" (Compl. ¶27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "sponge insert," which the patents depict as a discrete element, be construed to cover the accused product's cushion layer, which is allegedly "molded" and integrated with the mat body? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence and function: for the ’648 Patent, can Plaintiff prove that the accused mat’s rigid structures are measurably "spaced from the surface" in an unloaded state and make contact only under load? For the ’037 Patent, the question will be whether the accused product meets the broader functional requirements of "providing a more cushioned feel" while maintaining "structural integrity" in a way that falls within the claim scope.