DCT

1:23-cv-00257

Purple Innovation LLC v. Tempur Sealy Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00257, M.D.N.C., 03/24/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants allegedly maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district and committing acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sealy FlexGrid Hybrid mattress line infringes a patent related to hybrid mattresses that combine an elastomeric gel grid with a pocketed coil support layer.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology in the highly competitive premium mattress market, specifically focusing on "hybrid" constructions that seek to merge the benefits of traditional innersprings with modern comfort materials.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided constructive notice of the patent-in-suit via its public patent marking webpage on or before October 23, 2022. It further alleges Defendant purchased Plaintiff's products for testing and copying, which would have carried markings directing to that webpage.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-11-17 '733 Patent Priority Date
2018 Plaintiff's Purple Hybrid® mattress launched
2018-08-26 Plaintiff began patent marking for related inventions
2022-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 11,317,733 Issued
2022-10-XX Defendant's Sealy FlexGrid™ Hybrid mattress line launched
2022-10-23 Plaintiff listed '733 Patent on its patent marking webpage
2023-03-24 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,317,733 - “Mattresses Including an Elastomeric Cushioning Element and a Pocketed Coil Layer and Related Methods,” Issued May 3, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while springs provide durability in mattresses, they can be felt through the mattress’s side panels, and the wire frames used to provide edge structure are often ill-suited for the compression required for modern "bed-in-a-box" shipping methods (’733 Patent, col. 1:35-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a multi-layer mattress assembly that combines a lower support structure of pocketed coils with an upper "elastomeric cushioning element," such as a gel grid (’733 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in Figure 2 of the patent, the construction typically includes a base layer, a coil layer, an intermediate "upper layer" (e.g., foam), and the top elastomeric element, all encased in an outer cover (’733 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:15-18). A specific feature recited in the asserted claims is a "stabilization layer" between the foam and the gel grid, through which the elastomeric material can "seep" to create a non-slip interface between the layers (’733 Patent, col. 4:38-65).
  • Technical Importance: This hybrid construction aims to deliver a "best of both worlds" solution by combining the responsive support of coils with the pressure relief and airflow characteristics of a gel-grid comfort layer, a key area of innovation and competition in the mattress industry (Compl. ¶3, ¶5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • Claim 1 of the ’733 Patent recites the following essential elements for a mattress assembly:
    • a base layer;
    • a coil layer with a plurality of pocketed coils;
    • an upper layer disposed over the coil layer;
    • a stabilization layer comprising a scrim fabric;
    • an elastomeric cushioning element disposed over the stabilization layer, with the elastomeric material "seeping through" the fabric to create a non-slip or reduced slip surface on the bottom of the stabilization layer, which is positioned against the upper layer; and
    • an outer covering encasing all the layers.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, and 20 (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are mattresses in the "Sealy® FlexGrid™ Hybrid" line (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as hybrid mattresses that feature a "gel grid layer," marketed by Sealy under the "HexGel" mark, positioned over "Response Pro Encased Coils" (Compl. ¶46-47). A cutaway image of the accused product shows a blue grid layer atop a layer of encased coils (Compl. ¶47, p. 18). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant launched this line in October 2022 specifically to copy Plaintiff's technology and compete with its successful Purple Hybrid® mattresses (Compl. ¶6, ¶46). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the layered construction of Plaintiff's patented mattress and the accused Sealy FlexGrid Hybrid mattress (Compl. ¶6, p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'733 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a base layer A foundational layer shown in product imagery beneath the coil system. ¶47 col. 4:15-18
a coil layer disposed over the base layer, the coil layer comprising a plurality of pocketed coils The accused mattresses feature "Response Pro Encased Coils." ¶47 col. 5:39-44
an upper layer disposed over the coil layer A foam-like layer is depicted in product imagery between the coil layer and the gel grid. ¶47 col. 5:21-25
a stabilization layer comprising a scrim fabric The complaint alleges infringement of Claim 1, which contains this limitation, but does not provide specific factual allegations detailing this layer's presence in the accused product. ¶45, ¶60 col. 4:38-65
an elastomeric cushioning element disposed over the stabilization layer, an elastomeric material...seeping through the stabilization layer...defining a reduced slip surface...positioned against an upper surface of the upper layer The accused products contain a "pressure-relieving gel grid" marketed as "HexGel." The complaint does not specify how this element meets the "seeping through" limitation. ¶46, ¶50 col. 6:28-31
an outer covering encasing the...layers Product images show an outer fabric cover encompassing the mattress components. ¶47 col. 4:15-18

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The complaint’s general allegation of infringement of Claim 1 raises a critical evidentiary question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product’s construction includes a "stabilization layer" and that the "HexGel" material "seeps through" it to form a "non-slip surface" against an "upper layer," as specifically required by the claim? The complaint includes a reproduction of Figure 2 from the patent, which illustrates the claimed layered structure including base layer 102, coil layer 104, upper layer 106, and elastomeric element 108 (Compl. ¶33, p. 14). However, it does not map these specific sub-elements, particularly the stabilization layer, to the accused product with particularity.
  • Scope Question: A secondary issue may concern the definition of "elastomeric cushioning element." The court may need to consider whether Sealy's "HexGel" material possesses the specific structural and material properties (e.g., composition, buckling walls) described in the ’733 patent’s specification, which could influence the infringement analysis (’733 Patent, col. 6:28-51).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "an elastomeric material ... seeping through the stabilization layer ... defining a reduced slip surface or a non-slip surface on a lower surface of the stabilization layer"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears to describe a specific and potentially novel manufacturing method and resulting structure for bonding the gel grid to the underlying foam layer. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive for infringement of Claim 1, as it details a very specific physical interface between layers.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may suggest that "seeping through" does not require a complete fluidic pass-through but could encompass any manufacturing process where the elastomeric material partially penetrates or mechanically interlocks with the scrim fabric to achieve a bonding or "non-slip" effect.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, requiring material to be "exposed and defining a reduced slip surface ... on a lower surface of the stabilization layer" (’733 Patent, cl. 1). The specification supports this narrow reading, describing how "portions of the elastomeric cushioning element ... may seep through ... the scrim fabric" to "create a non-slip surface" that helps keep the layers in place (’733 Patent, col. 4:50-65).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendant "encourages others to use the Infringing Products in an infringing matter" (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful, deliberate, and intentional (Compl. ¶62). This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’733 Patent. The complaint asserts that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge from at least October 23, 2022, due to Plaintiff’s public patent marking website (Compl. ¶38, ¶61). It further alleges that Defendant purchased Plaintiff’s mattresses for "testing, copying and comparative product demonstrations," which were labeled with a URL to the patent list (Compl. ¶37). The complaint supports its narrative of copying by presenting side-by-side comparisons of marketing visuals, such as those used to demonstrate airflow through the respective gel grids (Compl. ¶52, p. 21). As an alternative, it pleads willful blindness (Compl. ¶39).

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused Sealy mattress contains the highly specific multi-part interface required by Claim 1, namely an "upper layer," a "stabilization layer" made of "scrim fabric," and an "elastomeric material" that "seeps through" that fabric to form a non-slip surface? The resolution of this factual and technical question appears critical to the direct infringement claim.
  • A second key question will relate to culpability and damages: Assuming infringement is established, do Defendant’s alleged actions—including its purported product copying, competitive product analysis, and the public notice provided by Plaintiff’s patent marking webpage—rise to the level of "willful" infringement, which could expose Defendant to the risk of enhanced damages?