DCT

1:25-cv-00255

Viscosoft Inc v. Hangzhou Heliang Network Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Case Name: Viscosoft, Inc. v. Hangzhou Heliang Network Technology Co., Ltd., et al.
  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00255, W.D.N.C., 08/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because all Defendants are foreign companies with no place of business in the United States, and they have allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district by marketing and selling the accused products in North Carolina.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ mattress toppers infringe its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a mattress topper.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer bedding market, specifically concerning mattress toppers featuring designs intended to prevent the product from shifting on a mattress during use.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges to the patent, are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-01-29 U.S. Patent No. D969,522 Priority Date
2022-11-15 U.S. Patent No. D969,522 Issues
2025-08-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D969,522 S - "Mattress Topper"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D969,522 S, "Mattress Topper", issued November 15, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that the patented design addresses the problem of a mattress topper slipping when a consumer moves on the bed (Compl. ¶23).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a mattress topper as depicted in its figures ('522 Patent, Claim). The design's key visual features include a bottom surface with a repeating, link-like texture, and adjustable elastic straps positioned diagonally across each of the four corners to secure it to a mattress (Compl. ¶23; ’522 Patent, FIG. 6, FIG. 8). The top surface is shown with a simple stippled pattern ('522 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 7).
  • Technical Importance: The design combines ornamental features that serve the functional purpose of keeping a mattress topper in place, a significant consideration for consumers in the bedding accessories market (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for the mattress topper, as shown and described." (’522 Patent, Claim).
  • The claim's scope is defined by the visual appearance of the article shown in the patent figures. The essential ornamental elements include:
    • The overall visual impression of the mattress topper as a whole.
    • A bottom surface featuring a specific, repeating chain-like or link-like pattern.
    • Adjustable elastic straps oriented diagonally across each corner on the bottom side.
    • A top surface with a uniform stippled pattern.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are mattress toppers sold by four different defendants under the brand names Valuxe, Sinweek, Joyride Sleep, and Chun Yi (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 30, 34, 38).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are mattress toppers marketed and sold in the United States through e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com, utilizing Amazon's "Fulfillment by Amazon" (FBA) program for distribution (Compl. ¶¶ 4-6, 8-10). The complaint highlights marketing materials for the accused products that emphasize features such as an "Anti-slip design" and "Adjustable elastic strap" (Compl. ¶28) or "Non-slip Bottom" and "Adjustable Straps" (Compl. ¶32). A provided image of the Valuxe product shows it being fitted onto a mattress with corner straps and highlights its "NON-SLIP & STAY PUT" capability (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The complaint alleges that such an observer would be deceived into believing the accused products are the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 33, 37, 41). The complaint presents side-by-side visual comparisons to support this allegation. For example, a photo of the Sinweek accused product shows a non-slip bottom and adjustable straps, features central to the patented design (Compl. ¶32).

D'969,522 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (Ornamental Feature from D'969,522) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for a mattress topper, as a whole The complaint alleges the overall design of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the patented design. A picture of the Joyride Sleep product shows it in use on a bed, secured by corner straps (Compl. ¶36). ¶¶ 29, 37 '522 Patent, Figs. 1-8
A bottom surface with an ornamental, repeating pattern The accused products are alleged to have an "Anti-slip design" or "Non-slip Bottom" that is visually similar to the patented design's bottom texture. One marketing image for an accused product explicitly labels a magnified circle of the bottom surface as "Non-slip Bottom" (Compl. ¶32). ¶¶ 28, 32 '522 Patent, Fig. 6, Fig. 8
Adjustable elastic straps positioned diagonally across each corner on the bottom side The accused products are shown to have "Adjustable elastic strap[s]" or "Adjustable Straps" at the corners. An image of the Valuxe product shows a hand pulling a corner strap over a mattress (Compl. ¶28). ¶¶ 28, 32 '522 Patent, Fig. 6, Fig. 8

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused designs are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. This raises the question of how much weight should be given to individual features versus the overall appearance.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the specific textures on the bottoms of the accused products create the same visual impression as the link-like pattern shown in the patent's Figure 8. Further, some accused products appear to have a quilted top surface (Compl. ¶32), which differs from the patent's stippled top surface (ʼ522 Patent, FIG. 1), raising the question of whether this difference is substantial enough to avoid infringement when considering the design as a whole.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, analysis focuses on key ornamental features rather than claim term construction. The dispute will likely center on the scope and visual weight of the following features.

  • The Feature: The bottom surface pattern

    • Context and Importance: This feature is central to the patent's visual identity and is explicitly marketed as a key feature of the accused products (e.g., "Anti-slip design," Compl. ¶28). The degree of visual similarity between the patent's specific link-like pattern and the various patterns on the accused products will be a primary point of dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the claim covers any visually similar repeating texture on the bottom surface that, in combination with the corner straps, creates the same overall impression as the patented design. The emphasis would be on the general concept of a textured, non-slip bottom.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the patentee's choice to depict a very specific, detailed link-like pattern in Figure 8 limits the claim's scope to that particular design or very close variations, and that their products' different patterns (e.g., raised dots) fall outside that scope.

  • The Feature: The design "as a whole"

    • Context and Importance: The legal test for infringement requires an evaluation of the overall appearance. Practitioners may focus on this because it brings potentially distinguishing features, such as the top surface design, into the analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the bottom view, with its distinctive straps and texture, is the dominant visual aspect of the design and that differences on the top surface are minor in comparison, thus not altering the overall visual impression for an ordinary observer.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the quilted top surface on some accused products (Compl. ¶32, ¶36) creates a fundamentally different aesthetic from the plain, stippled top surface shown in the patent ('522 Patent, FIG. 1), resulting in a different overall design that would not deceive an ordinary observer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). It alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and unlawful application of a patented design to an article of manufacture under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31, 35, 39).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "willfully and knowingly infringed" (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31, 35, 39). The complaint does not, however, allege specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the '522 patent, such as a cease-and-desist letter or prior litigation.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Are the accused designs "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer? This will require a granular comparison of the bottom surface patterns and a determination of whether visual differences on other parts of the products, such as the top surfaces, are significant enough to create a different overall ornamental impression.

  2. The case may also depend on the role of the prior art: The infringement test presumes the ordinary observer is familiar with the prior art. The scope of the patented design and the patentable weight of its features will be assessed against what was already common in the mattress topper field, a question that will require evidence beyond the complaint.

  3. A potential defense may raise a question of functionality versus ornamentality: Defendants could argue that features like diagonally placed corner straps and a textured bottom surface are so dictated by their function of securing the topper that there is little to no patentable ornamental design to protect. The court may need to determine whether the specific visual execution of these functional elements in the '522 patent is primarily ornamental or merely functional.