Tumble Living Inc v. Cozey Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tumble Living, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cozey Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: BEW LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13592, N.D. Ill., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Canadian entity with no principal place of business in the United States, and thus may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Washable Rugs" infringe a patent related to multi-piece, modular floor covering systems featuring a separate rug top and mat base.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for washable, non-slip area rugs, which combine the aesthetic of a traditional rug with the practicality of easy cleaning and secure placement.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s CEO purchased one of Plaintiff’s products marked with “Patents Pending” in October 2022, nearly two years before the patent-in-suit issued. It further alleges Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant detailing the infringement on April 2, 2025, approximately seven months before filing suit. These allegations form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-10-20	’355 Patent Priority Date
2022-10-01	Defendant's CEO allegedly purchased Plaintiff's product marked "Patents Pending" (Month estimated from complaint)
2024-12-24	U.S. Patent No. 12,171,355 Issued
2025-04-02	Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant
2025-11-05	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,171,355 - “Multi-Piece Rug and Mat Arrangement and Assembly for Forming a Floor Covering”

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 12,171,355, issued December 24, 2024 (the “’355 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes common problems with traditional area rugs, including their tendency to slide on floors, curl at the edges, and be difficult to clean, warehouse, and ship due to their bulk (’355 Patent, col. 1:33-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part floor covering system designed for stability and ease of maintenance. It consists of a decorative top rug portion and a separate bottom mat portion (’355 Patent, col. 5:1-3). The underside of the rug portion features "pocketed areas" located at each corner, into which the corresponding corners of the mat portion are inserted (’355 Patent, col. 2:38-46). This arrangement secures the rug to the mat, preventing curling and slipping, while allowing the rug to be easily detached for cleaning in a conventional washing machine (’355 Patent, col. 3:1-7). The mat portion may be composed of multiple interlocking sections, making it easier to ship and handle (’355 Patent, col. 2:45-50).
• Technical Importance: This design offers a modular solution that retains the appearance of a single-piece rug while providing the practical benefits of a non-slip pad and machine washability.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • An area rug assembly comprising a rug portion and a mat portion.
  • A plurality of "pocketed areas" affixed to the bottom surface of the rug portion "at each corner area thereof only and at no other position."
  • A mat portion made of "multiple pieces that interlock to form a single mat."
  • The mat portion has a "non-slip material on a top surface."
  • Each corner of the mat is "insertable into a pocketed area" to secure the two portions together.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant Cozey's "Washable Rugs" sold through its commercial website (Compl. ¶26, Compl. ¶29). A screenshot in the complaint shows a product page for a "Savannah Washable Rug" as an example (Compl. p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant markets its products as "innovative" and sells them in many sizes and styles (Compl. ¶26-27). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows a product category titled "Washable Rugs" (Compl. p. 7). The complaint asserts that these products are "copies of Plaintiff's technology and design aesthetic" and directly compete with Plaintiff's patented products (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the construction of the accused rugs beyond these general allegations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not included with the filing (Compl. ¶35). The infringement theory is therefore based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cozey Infringing Products, identified as "Washable Rugs," directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’355 Patent (Compl. ¶35, Compl. ¶41). The core allegation is that the accused products are "copies of Plaintiff's technology," which suggests they embody the same two-part structure with a rug top and a modular, interlocking mat base connected via corner pockets (Compl. ¶28). The complaint further alleges that Defendant is making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing these infringing products into the United States (Compl. ¶30, Compl. ¶34).

Identified Points of Contention

• Structural Questions: The central issue will be evidentiary: does the accused "Washable Rug" system actually have the specific structure required by claim 1? Discovery will need to establish whether the accused product includes (1) pocketed areas affixed only at the corners of the rug portion, (2) a mat portion comprised of multiple interlocking pieces, and (3) a "non-slip material" on the mat's top surface.
• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the negative limitation "at each corner area thereof only and at no other position." The interpretation of "only" could be critical if the accused product uses any additional fastening mechanism between the rug and mat layers, even if it also has corner pockets.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"pocketed areas affixed to a bottom surface of the rug portion at each corner area thereof only and at no other position" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term's "only" limitation is a significant constraint on the claim's scope. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused products feature fastening mechanisms exclusively at the corners. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product has any other attachment points (e.g., Velcro strips along the sides), it may fall outside the literal scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the corner pockets as the primary coupling mechanism, without discussing or disclaiming other potential fasteners (’355 Patent, col. 6:17-21, ’355 Patent, col. 14:57-65). A party might argue "only" refers to the location of the pocketed areas themselves, not the exclusion of other, different types of fasteners elsewhere.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is explicit. The consistent focus on corner pockets as the sole means of securing the rug to the mat could support an interpretation where "only" precludes any other form of attachment between the two components (’355 Patent, col. 2:38-46).

"non-slip material on a top surface of the mat portion" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a functional property for the material on the top of the mat. The dispute will likely center on what technical characteristics satisfy the "non-slip" requirement. Is it an inherent property of the mat's base material, or must it be a distinct, applied coating?
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this feature is to discourage "movement of the rug portion 110 relative to the mat portion 120" (’355 Patent, col. 10:11-14). This functional goal could support a broad interpretation where any material that measurably increases friction between the two layers qualifies as "non-slip."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of the "non-slip material" as a "laminate comprised of a resin, a plastic or rubber, for example a thermoplastic resin" that "impart[s] anti-slip qualities" (’355 Patent, col. 9:56-60). This language suggests an applied coating or specific material choice, rather than just the inherent texture of a foam mat.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Cozey induces and contributes to infringement based on its knowledge of the ’355 Patent since at least April 2, 2025, the date of the alleged notice letter (Compl. ¶42). It alleges Cozey "actively induces its customers to infringe" but provides no specific facts, such as instructional materials, to support this claim beyond the act of selling the products.

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on both alleged pre- and post-suit knowledge. Plaintiff alleges pre-suit knowledge stems from Defendant's CEO purchasing a product marked "Patents Pending" in October 2022 (Compl. ¶38-40). The complaint includes an image of this "Patents Pending" label (Compl. p. 5). Post-issuance knowledge is alleged based on a notice letter sent on April 2, 2025, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶37, Compl. ¶43, Compl. ¶45). Plaintiff also provides an image of the post-issuance product label showing the full patent number (Compl. p. 5).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of structural identity: Does discovery confirm that Cozey's "Washable Rugs" are constructed with the specific combination of features required by Claim 1, namely the corner-only pockets, a multi-piece interlocking mat, and a non-slip top surface on the mat?
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the negative limitation "only" in the phrase "at each corner area thereof only"? The answer will determine whether any additional fasteners between the rug and mat layers, if present in the accused product, would allow Defendant to escape infringement.
• A crucial question for damages will be one of willfulness: Did Defendant's alleged purchase of a "Patents Pending" product establish a basis for willful infringement for its post-issuance conduct, and how will the alleged receipt of a notice letter seven months prior to the suit impact this determination?