Max Home LLC v. Bauhaus Furniture Group LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Max Home, LLC (Mississippi)
  • Defendant: Bauhaus Furniture Group, LLC (Mississippi)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00070, N.D. Miss., 04/19/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Mississippi because the Defendant is a Mississippi corporation with its principal place of business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurred there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Gel Memory Foam Seating" furniture products infringe a patent related to laminated, cooling-effect seating cushions.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology in the furniture manufacturing sector, specifically cushion construction designed to improve thermal comfort and long-term shape retention.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant two cease and desist letters, on February 7, 2018, and March 19, 2018, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond. The asserted patent was the subject of a Certificate of Correction issued on May 8, 2018, which corrected a typographical error in asserted claim 1.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-09-24	U.S. Patent No. 9,820,579 Priority Date
2017-11-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,820,579 Issue Date
2018-02-07	First cease and desist letter sent to Defendant
2018-03-19	Second cease and desist letter sent to Defendant
2018-04-19	Complaint Filing Date
2018-05-08	Certificate of Correction issued for U.S. Patent No. 9,820,579

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,820,579 - SEATING SOFA WITH LAMINATED READILY REBOUNDABLE COOLING-EFFECT SEATING CUSHIONS

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,820,579, "SEATING SOFA WITH LAMINATED READILY REBOUNDABLE COOLING-EFFECT SEATING CUSHIONS," issued November 21, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies two primary drawbacks of conventional furniture cushions: the tendency to trap body heat, creating a perception of "increased warmth created while sitting," and the formation of permanent depressions or "valleys" after use, which detracts from the furniture's appearance and useful life (’579 Patent, col. 1:41-51; col. 2:1-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layered cushion structure designed to solve these problems. It consists of a central foam core "sandwiched" between two "gel infused viscoelastic pads" (’579 Patent, col. 3:42-44). As depicted in Figure 1, these layers are laminated together. This construction claims to provide a cooling effect by wicking body heat away from the user and into the gel-infused material, while also allowing the cushion to "readily rebound" to its original shape after a person gets up (’579 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:62-col. 6:2).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to simultaneously improve two distinct aspects of user experience in upholstered furniture: thermal comfort and long-term aesthetic durability (’579 Patent, col. 2:6-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a laminated seating cushion) and 9 (a furniture piece incorporating the cushion) (’579 Patent, col. 5:35-col. 6:66; Compl. ¶19).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A pair of gel infused viscoelastic pads, each with a sitting side and an adherence side.
  • A core foam pad with two opposing adherence sides.
  • The lamination of each gel pad's adherence side to a respective core pad adherence side, so the core is disposed between the gel pads.
  • A covering sheet overlying the side-face adherence boundary.
  • An upholstered casing that encloses the entire laminated structure.
  • A functional element where the pads have a first "substantially planar" state and a second "recessed valley" state under compressive load.
  • A "whereby" clause stating the uppermost pad wicks body heat to reduce perceived temperature changes and readily rebounds to the first state upon egress.
• Independent Claim 9 recites a furniture piece comprising a frame and at least one seating cushion as recited in claim 1.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "Gel Memory Foam Seating" product line (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is a laminated seating cushion used in furniture sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶16, 24). The product is alleged to have a layered construction comprising "a pair of gel infused viscoelastic pads (A)," "a core foam pad (B)," "a covering sheet (C)," and "an upholstered casing (D)" (Compl. ¶20). Exhibit B to the complaint is described as containing photographs of the Accused Product intended to show this infringing construction (Compl. ¶20). The complaint positions the Defendant as a direct competitor to the Plaintiff in the furniture industry (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’579 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a pair of gel infused viscoelastic pads, each pad having a length, a width, and a thickness and defining a sitting side and an opposing adherence side;	The Accused Product includes "a pair of gel infused viscoelastic pads (A), each pad having a length, a width, and a thickness and defining a sitting side and an opposing adherence side"	¶20	col. 3:43-47
a core foam pad having a core length, a core width, and a core thickness and defining opposing first and second core adherence sides,	The Accused Product includes "a core foam pad (B) having a core length, a core width, and a core thickness and defining opposing first and second core adherence sides"	¶20	col. 3:42-46
each of the pair of gel infused viscoelastic pads laminated on the adherence side to a respective one of the opposing first and second core adherence sides to define an adherence boundary there between, whereby the core foam pad is disposed between the pair of gel infused viscoelastic pads;	The Accused Product has its gel infused pads "laminated on the adherence side to a respective one of the opposing first and second core adherence sides to define an adherence boundary there between, whereby the core foam pad is disposed between the pair of gel infused viscoelastic pads"	¶20	col. 3:47-52
a covering sheet overlying the adherence boundary on a side face of the laminated core foam pad and gel infused viscoelastic pads;	The Accused Product includes "a covering sheet (C) overlying the adherence boundary on a side face of the laminated core foam pad and gel infused viscoelastic pads"	¶20	col. 3:52-56
an upholstered casing that receives and encloses the laminated viscoelastic pads and the core foam pad as a seating cushion,	The Accused Product includes "an upholstered casing (D) that receives and encloses the laminated viscoelastic pads and the core foam pad as a seating cushion"	¶20	col. 3:56-59
the laminated gel infused viscoelastic pads having a first state and a second state, the second state defining a recessed valley...by compressive loading of a person sitting thereon...and the first state relaxed therefrom to a substantially planar surface;	The Accused Product’s pads allegedly have "a first state and a second state, the second state defining a recessed valley...by compressive loading of a person sitting thereon...and the first state relaxed therefrom to a substantially planar surface"	¶20	col. 4:46-55
whereby the uppermost one of the gel infused viscoelastic pads...wicks body heat...to reduce perceived changes in a seating temperature and defines the valley while readily rebounding to the first state relaxed from the second state upon egress from sitting by the occupant person.	The Accused Product’s uppermost pad allegedly "wicks body heat from the person inwardly to reduce perceived changes in a seating temperature and defines the valley while readily rebounding to the first state relaxed from the second state upon egress from sitting by the occupant person"	¶20	col. 5:62-col. 6:2

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "covering sheet." The complaint alleges the accused product has such a sheet (C) (Compl. ¶20), but a defendant could argue that its product’s internal liner or fire-retardant sock is a standard industry component that does not meet the specific limitation of "overlying the adherence boundary on a side face" as taught and depicted in the patent (’579 Patent, col. 3:52-54, Fig. 1).
• Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the accused product performs the functions in the "whereby" clause (Compl. ¶20). A primary technical question for the court will be whether the accused product demonstrably "wicks body heat" to "reduce perceived changes in a seating temperature" and "readily rebound[s]" in the manner claimed. This will likely require factual evidence beyond a simple inspection of the product's structure, such as thermal testing and material performance data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "readily rebounding"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the invention's claimed improvement over prior art cushions that develop permanent depressions. Its definition will determine the standard of performance an accused product must meet. Practitioners may focus on this term because its qualitative nature creates ambiguity that could be exploited during litigation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term qualitatively without defining a specific time or percentage of recovery, stating the pad "readily rebounds from the second state to the first state" to return the furniture to a "perceived unused status" (’579 Patent, col. 5:1-5). This suggests a general, observable property rather than a precise engineering metric.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art that can "lose the rebounding performance and create rather a permanent valley" (’579 Patent, col. 2:2-4). A party could argue that "readily" must be construed to mean a performance level that avoids this specific failure mode, thereby narrowing its scope to only highly resilient materials.

The Term: "covering sheet"

• Context and Importance: This structural element’s identity is necessary for infringement. The dispute will likely center on whether any internal fabric layer qualifies, or if it must be a distinct component with a specific purpose and placement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes an embodiment where the sheet is a "nonwoven fabric" that "wraps around the laminated core 12 and pads 14 and secures thereto with the adhesive" (’579 Patent, col. 3:62-65), which could support an interpretation that a simple, fully-enveloping internal wrap meets the limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the sheet to be "overlying the adherence boundary on a side face" (’579 Patent, col. 5:48-51). Figure 1 shows the sheet (30) as a distinct band on the side faces, not fully enveloping the top and bottom. This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific placement rather than a simple wrap or sock.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges active inducement and contributory infringement, stating Defendant has "caused and will continue to cause MAX HOME irreparable injury" through its infringing activities (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how Defendant's actions induced its customers or end-users to infringe.

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful and intentional infringement, citing Defendant's failure to respond to two pre-suit cease and desist letters dated February 7, 2018, and March 19, 2018, as evidence of knowledge and "blatant disregard" of Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶¶17, 18, 21, 26).

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

• A core issue will be one of functional performance: can Plaintiff produce sufficient factual evidence, likely through expert testing, to prove that the accused product not only shares a similar structure but also achieves the claimed functional results of "wick[ing] body heat" to a degree that "reduce[s] perceived changes in a seating temperature" and "readily rebounding" as defined by the patent?
• A second key question will be one of claim construction: how will the court construe the structural term "covering sheet overlying the adherence boundary on a side face"? The outcome may turn on whether this is interpreted broadly as any internal fabric wrap or narrowly as a distinct component with a specific placement, potentially allowing the Defendant to design around or distinguish its product from the claim.
• Finally, a significant question regarding damages will be one of willfulness: did Defendant's alleged failure to respond to two pre-suit notice letters constitute objective recklessness, potentially exposing it to an award of enhanced damages if infringement is found?