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 foreign entity with no principal place of business in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Washable Rugs" infringe a patent related to a multi-piece floor covering system featuring a detachable rug top and a separate mat base.
• Technical Context: The technology pertains to modular rug systems designed to solve common issues of slippage, corner curling, and difficulty in cleaning associated with traditional area rugs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant's CEO purchased one of Plaintiff's products marked "Patent Pending" in October 2022, nearly three years prior to the suit. Plaintiff also alleges sending a notice letter to Defendant regarding the infringement on April 2, 2025, approximately seven months before filing the complaint. These allegations may be used to support claims of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes common problems with conventional area rugs, including their tendency to slide on underlying surfaces, for their corners to curl up, and their bulky nature making them difficult to clean, store, and ship (ʼ355 Patent, col. 1:32-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-piece floor covering that comprises a top rug portion and a separate bottom mat portion (’355 Patent, Abstract). The core mechanism involves "pocketed areas" located on the underside of each corner of the rug portion; the corners of the mat portion are inserted into these pockets to secure the two layers together (’355 Patent, col. 2:35-45; Fig. 6). This design is intended to prevent slippage and curling while allowing the lightweight rug portion to be easily detached for cleaning (’355 Patent, col. 3:1-7). The mat portion may also be composed of multiple interlocking sections to make it less cumbersome to ship and handle (’355 Patent, col. 2:45-50).
• Technical Importance: The solution provides a modular system that aims to combine the aesthetic qualities of a traditional rug with the practicality of a non-slip, easy-to-clean, and easily shippable floor covering (’355 Patent, col. 2:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An area rug assembly, comprising: a rug portion;
  • a plurality of pocketed areas affixed to a bottom surface of the rug portion at each corner area thereof only and at no other position along the bottom surface;
  • a mat portion having substantially the same dimensions as the rug portion, the mat portion comprised of multiple pieces that interlock to form a single mat, and having a non-slip material on a top surface of the mat portion;
  • wherein each corner of the mat portion is insertable into a pocketed area... to secure the rug portion and the mat portion together.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant's "Washable Rugs" sold through its commercial website, referred to collectively as the "Cozey Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶¶26, 29). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Defendant's online product page for a "Savannah Washable Rug" as an example (Compl., p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant markets its "Washable Rugs" as having an "innovative design" and sells them in various sizes and styles directly to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, via its website (Compl. ¶¶8, 26-27). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows a product category page for "Washable Rugs" (Compl., p. 7). The complaint asserts that these products are "copies of Plaintiff's technology" (Compl. ¶28). However, the complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the construction or operation of the accused rugs, such as whether they consist of one or multiple pieces or how any such pieces are connected.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that the infringement of claim 1 is detailed in a claim chart attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶35). However, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. As such, the complaint's narrative allegations form the basis for the following analysis.

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports the "Cozey Infringing Products" which directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’355 Patent (Compl. ¶¶30, 41). The pleading does not, however, contain factual allegations that map specific features of the accused products to the specific limitations of claim 1.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: A central question will be whether the accused "Washable Rugs" are multi-component "assemblies" as required by claim 1. Does the complaint provide any evidence that the accused products consist of a distinct "rug portion" and a "mat portion"? Further, what evidence supports the allegation that the accused products possess a mat "comprised of multiple pieces that interlock," a specific structural limitation of the asserted claim?
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "pocketed areas affixed to a bottom surface of the rug portion at each corner area thereof only" will be critical. The complaint lacks any allegation or visual evidence, such as the product label images provided for Plaintiff's own products (Compl., p. 5), that would clarify whether the accused products use this specific attachment mechanism, and if they employ any other attachment means that would fall outside the claim's negative limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"at each corner area thereof only" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term includes the negative limitation "only," which sharply defines the location of the "pocketed areas." Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product has attachment mechanisms at locations other than the corners (e.g., along the sides), it may not infringe this claim. The presence of "only" creates a clear boundary for the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer language that would broaden the interpretation of "only." The term itself is unambiguous.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit language of claim 1 is the strongest evidence for a narrow interpretation. The specification consistently depicts the pocketed areas (130) exclusively at the corners (118) of the rug portion (110), reinforcing this limitation (’355 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 6-10; col. 6:20-22).

"mat portion comprised of multiple pieces that interlock" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the fundamental structure of the mat. The dispute may turn on whether the mat of the accused product is a single, monolithic piece or is assembled from multiple interlocking sections. A single-piece mat would not meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: While the specification mentions that the mat portion could be a "singular piece of material" in a general sense (’355 Patent, col. 8:11-14), claim 1 explicitly recites "multiple pieces that interlock." This suggests that while a single-piece mat may be contemplated by the disclosure, it is not covered by this specific asserted claim.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is explicit. The specification provides detailed descriptions and figures showing the mat portion (120) composed of "a plurality of interlocking sections (140)" with "interlocking teeth (150)" (’355 Patent, Figs. 4, 5; col. 8:5-26).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that based on its knowledge of the ’355 Patent since at least April 2, 2025, Cozey actively induces and contributes to infringement by its customers (Compl. ¶42). The complaint does not specify the acts of inducement, such as through user manuals or instructions.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges post-suit knowledge stemming from a notice letter sent on April 2, 2025 (Compl. ¶37). More significantly, it alleges pre-suit knowledge based on the assertion that Defendant's CEO purchased one of Plaintiff's products marked "Patent Pending" in October 2022, over two years before the patent issued (Compl. ¶¶38-40).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused Cozey product actually incorporate the specific two-part assembly recited in claim 1, and crucially, does its mat component consist of "multiple pieces that interlock"? The absence of this specific, defining feature in the accused product would present a significant challenge to the infringement claim.
• A key threshold question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint makes a general infringement allegation without providing a claim chart or specific facts mapping accused product features to claim limitations. A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff can introduce to demonstrate that the accused rugs practice structurally precise limitations like the corner-only pockets and the interlocking mat.