DCT

1:12-cv-00615

Isom Morris v. Kimberly Clark Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:12-cv-00615, W.D. Mich., 06/14/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Michigan based on the Plaintiff's residence within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a design patent for a "Mattress Liner."
  • Technical Context: The patent relates to the ornamental design of bedding accessories, specifically liners placed on mattresses.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent Defendant a "Notice of Patent Infringement" letter approximately six weeks prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-24 U.S. Patent No. D655,556 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2012-03-13 U.S. Patent No. D655,556 Issued
2012-05-01 Plaintiff sends "Notice of Patent Infringement" letter to Defendant
2012-06-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D655,556 - "Mattress Liner"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D655,556, "Mattress Liner", issued March 13, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D655556 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a mattress liner as shown in its figures (D655,556 Patent, Claim). The design consists of a rectangular pad with a prominent, raised border framing a central field with a stippled or textured surface appearance (D655,556 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 2). The figures also depict the liner's slim profile from side and front elevational views (D655,556 Patent, FIG. 4, FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint does not provide context for the technical or market importance of this specific design for a mattress liner (Compl. ¶¶1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a mattress liner, as shown and described" (D655,556 Patent, col. 2:50-52).
  • The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
    • A generally rectangular shape.
    • A distinct, raised peripheral border.
    • A central surface area with a uniform, textured appearance.
    • The overall proportions and profile view as depicted in the patent's figures.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused product by name (Compl. ¶6). It refers generally to "products" made, used, or sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide any description of the functionality, features, or market context of the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶¶1-9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient detail to construct one, as it fails to identify a specific accused product or describe how any particular product embodies the patented design. The infringement allegation is a general statement that Defendant is "directly and/or jointly infringing on the claim" of the patent (Compl. ¶6).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Infringement Standard: A central question will be whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art for mattress liners, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design. The complaint provides no facts, such as a side-by-side comparison, to support this analysis.
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint's general allegation of infringement against unspecified "products" meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim construction. For design patents, the claim is understood to be the design as depicted in the drawings, and construction of specific verbal terms is generally not a central issue. The dispute will likely focus on a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the accused product and the patented design, rather than the definition of a particular word.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate language suggesting indirect infringement, stating Defendant's products "constitute a material part of the claimed invention and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶6). However, it alleges no specific facts to support a claim for either contributory or induced infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "should have known and was made known" of the 'D556 patent via a "Notice of Patent Infringement" letter dated May 1, 2012, prior to the filing of the action (Compl. ¶6). This allegation of pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness claim (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶A).

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

  • A core evidentiary question will be one of identification and comparison: What specific Kimberly-Clark product is being accused of infringement, and would an ordinary observer perceive its design as substantially the same as the design claimed in the 'D556 patent? The complaint provides no information on this dispositive issue.
  • A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint's failure to identify any accused product or provide any factual basis for the infringement allegation beyond a conclusory statement render it subject to dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim for relief?