MY Pillow Inc v. JS Fiber Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: My Pillow, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: JS Fiber Co., Inc. (North Carolina) and Jammin' Butter, LLC (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Simonelli IP, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-11110, E.D. Mich., 04/07/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants offering products for sale, transacting business, committing or inducing infringing acts in the district, and placing products into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase by residents of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ pillows, which are filled with shredded foam, infringe a patent related to a specific multi-sized mixture of polyurethane foam pieces.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the composition of fill material for pillows, aiming to optimize comfort, support, and shape retention by using a specific blend of foam particles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff advertises its own pillows as patented, which may be used to support allegations of notice and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-11-23	U.S. Patent 7,461,424 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2008-12-09	U.S. Patent 7,461,424 Issues
2017-04-07	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,461,424 - Method and Apparatus for a Pillow Including Foam Pieces of Various Sizes

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,461,424, "Method and Apparatus for a Pillow Including Foam Pieces of Various Sizes," issued December 9, 2008.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that users of existing pillows have reported "insufficient cushioning" and that available materials "do not combine the right combination of cushion, conformability, and shape adjustability" (’424 Patent, col. 1:12-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a pillow apparatus comprising a case filled with a mixture of polyurethane foam pieces of at least three different average sizes (’424 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). The specification explains that this combination of sizes allows smaller foam pieces to fill the interstices between larger pieces, creating a superior fill (’424 Patent, col. 3:12-16). The invention also specifies precise physical properties for the foam mixture, including a particular density and indent force deflection, to achieve the desired comfort and support (’424 Patent, col. 4:11-17).
• Technical Importance: This approach of creating a precisely defined, multi-sized foam mixture was intended to address long-standing user complaints about pillow performance and comfort (’424 Patent, col. 1:22-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1 through 8, with Claim 1 being the sole independent claim asserted (Compl. ¶21, ¶23).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A case;
  • A plurality of polyurethane foam pieces disposed in the case, which includes a first, second, and third plurality of foam pieces, each with a different average size;
  • The three pluralities of foam pieces are disposed in the case in a mix;
  • The first plurality of foam pieces represents "approximately 20 to 30 percent" of the total foam;
  • The second and third pluralities constitute the remaining foam "in an approximately equal proportion by volume";
  • The total plurality of foam has a density of "from about 1.8 pounds per cubic foot to about 1.9 pounds per cubic foot"; and
  • The total plurality of foam has an indent force deflection at 25% of "from about 27 to about 35."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Pillows offered for sale by Defendant Jammin' Butter, LLC and allegedly manufactured by Defendant JS Fiber Co., Inc. (Compl. ¶12, ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are pillows filled with shredded foam pieces (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that Defendant Jammin' Butter markets its pillow by stating it has the "'exact same filling as that one you see on TV...all the same aspects of that pillow....'" (Compl. ¶12). A photograph included in the complaint purports to show the three differently sized pluralities of foam pieces found inside the accused Jammin' Butter pillow (Compl. p. 5). The complaint further alleges that a law tag on the Jammin' Butter pillow identifies JS Fiber as the manufacturer (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’424 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a case; and	The pillows offered by Jammin' Butter include a case.	¶13	col. 6:17-17
a plurality of polyurethane foam pieces disposed in the case, the plurality including a first plurality of foam pieces of a first average size, a second plurality of foam pieces of a second average size, and a third plurality of foam pieces of a third average size, with the first, second, and third average sizes being different...	The accused pillows are alleged to contain "three differently sized pluralities of foam pieces." A photograph provided in the complaint purports to show these three distinct size groups.	¶13, p. 5	col. 6:18-24
...and with the first, second, and third pluralities of foam pieces disposed in the case in a mix, with the first plurality of foam pieces representing approximately 20 to 30 percent of the plurality of polyurethane foam pieces...	The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the accused pillows' filling contains a first plurality of foam pieces "representing approximately 20 to 30 percent of the foam inside the case."	¶13	col. 6:24-28
...and with the second plurality of foam pieces and the third plurality foam pieces constituting the remaining foam disposed in the case, in an approximately equal proportion by volume;	The complaint quotes this limitation as part of Claim 1, but the direct infringement allegation in paragraph 13 does not specifically address the "approximately equal proportion" of the second and third pluralities.	¶10	col. 6:28-31
wherein the plurality of a polyurethane foam pieces has a density of from about 1.8 pounds per cubic foot to about 1.9 pounds per cubic foot...	On information and belief, the foam pieces in the accused pillows are alleged to have a density within the claimed range.	¶14	col. 6:31-33
...and an indent force deflection at 25% of from about 27 to about 35.	On information and belief, the foam pieces in the accused pillows are alleged to have an indent force deflection at 25% within the claimed range.	¶14	col. 6:33-35

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the specific quantitative limitations of Claim 1—the 20-30% proportion, the "equal proportion" of the remainder, the density, and the indent force deflection—are made "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). A central question is what evidence exists to support these specific values, beyond the allegation that the defendant marketed its product as having the "exact same filling" as the plaintiff's (Compl. ¶12). The outcome of these elements may depend entirely on expert testing conducted during discovery.
• Scope Questions: The claim repeatedly uses the term "approximately." The interpretation of this term will be critical in determining whether the measured composition of the accused pillows falls within the claimed ranges. The dispute may center on how much deviation from the stated numerical values is permissible under the term "approximately."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "approximately"

• Context and Importance: This term qualifies the 20-30% range for the first plurality of foam pieces and the "equal proportion" for the second and third pluralities. Its construction is critical because it defines the boundaries of infringement for the pillow's composition. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will likely turn on whether the measured proportions of the accused product's fill are "approximately" the same as what is claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit numerical definition for "approximately." A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of "close to" or "nearly." The specification's statement that "the size of the foam pieces is difficult to describe absolutely, as it changes from piece to piece" could be used to argue for a more flexible interpretation of all related measurements (’424 Patent, col. 5:49-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that within the context of specific numerical ranges (e.g., "20 to 30 percent"), the term "approximately" is meant only to account for minor, unavoidable manufacturing variances. The patentee’s use of precise ranges for density and indent force deflection could be cited to argue that the patentee knew how to claim values with a specific degree of precision and chose to use "approximately" to denote a narrow range of equivalents.

The Term: "average size"

• Context and Importance: The claim requires three pluralities of foam pieces, each having a different "average size." The method used to calculate this "average" (e.g., by weight, volume, a principal dimension) is not defined in the claim and will be essential for determining if the three distinct pluralities exist in the accused product as required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific methodology for calculating "average size." The specification describes a manufacturing process using different-sized collection grids to produce small, medium, and large foam pieces, suggesting that the "average size" distinction is based on this manufacturing method (’424 Patent, col. 5:35-49). This may support an argument that any reasonable metric showing three distinct populations of foam pieces satisfies the limitation. The patent drawings also depict three visually distinct size groups (e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is indefinite for failing to specify how "average size" should be measured. Alternatively, a party might point to dependent claims that recite specific "average thickness" values (e.g., "average thickness of 46 millimeters" in claim 6) to argue that "size" implies a particular type of dimensional measurement that must be consistently applied (’424 Patent, col. 6:45-46).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint pleads inducement and contributory infringement against both Defendants (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). The alleged factual basis for inducement includes JS Fiber's alleged role as manufacturer supplying the infringing product to Jammin' Butter for sale, and Jammin' Butter's alleged marketing and sale of the product to end-users (Compl. ¶12, ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate, based on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶17). This allegation may be supported by the claim that Plaintiff's own product is marketed as patented and that Defendant Jammin' Butter allegedly advertised its product as having the "exact same filling" as Plaintiff's product, which could suggest knowledge and intent to copy (Compl. ¶9, ¶12).

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

• A central issue will be one of empirical verification: Will expert testing of the accused pillows confirm that the foam filling meets the specific quantitative limitations of Claim 1—including the proportional mix of foam sizes, density, and indent force deflection—which are currently alleged only on "information and belief"?
• The case will also likely involve a core definitional dispute: What is the proper construction of the term "approximately"? The court's interpretation of the scope of this word will directly impact whether the measured composition of the accused pillows, if close but not identical to the claimed ranges, constitutes infringement.
• Finally, a key question for damages will be one of intent: Do Defendant Jammin' Butter's alleged marketing claims that its pillow has the "exact same filling" as Plaintiff's well-known patented product provide sufficient evidence of deliberate copying to support a finding of willful infringement?