DCT
3:25-cv-00601
Viscosoft Inc v. Hangzhou Heliang Network Technology Co Ltd
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Viscosoft, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Hangzhou Heliang Network Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen Stahl & Kilbourne, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00601, W.D.N.C., 09/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign company without a place of business in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mattress toppers infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a mattress topper.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer bedding products sector, where ornamental design and product appearance are key differentiators in a competitive market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is an amended complaint, but no other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit, are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. D969,522 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2022-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. D969,522 Issued |
| 2025-09-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D969,522 - "Mattress Topper"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D969,522, "Mattress Topper," issued November 15, 2022 (’522 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint suggests that functional aspects, such as preventing a mattress topper from slipping, can be part of a protected ornamental design (Compl. ¶11). The patent itself addresses the challenge of creating a unique and visually identifiable appearance for a mattress topper.
- The Patented Solution: The ’522 Patent claims a specific ornamental design for a mattress topper characterized by the combination of its visual features. The design includes a top surface with a repeating pattern of small circles, a bottom surface with a distinct textured anti-slip pattern, and adjustable elastic straps with buckles positioned diagonally at each of the four corners ('522 Patent, DESCRIPTION; FIG. 1, 6, 8).
- Technical Importance: In the consumer goods market, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a source identifier and a key driver of consumer choice, differentiating a product from competitors.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for the mattress topper, as shown and described" (’522 Patent, CLAIM).
- The core ornamental elements defining the claimed design include:
- The specific surface ornamentation of the top side of the mattress topper (FIG. 1, 7).
- The specific surface ornamentation of the bottom side of the mattress topper (FIG. 6).
- The inclusion and diagonal placement of adjustable elastic straps at each corner on the bottom side (FIG. 6, 8).
- The overall visual impression created by the combination of these features.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"Valuxe Accused Products," which are mattress toppers of various sizes and thicknesses sold by Defendant Valuxe (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are mattress toppers marketed and sold in the United States through e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5). The complaint highlights marketing images that feature an "Anti-slip design" and an "Adjustable elastic strap" as key characteristics of the accused products (Compl. ¶16). A photograph provided in the complaint shows one of the accused products installed on a bed, displaying its corner strap securing it to a mattress (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
For a design patent, infringement occurs if, in the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The complaint alleges that this standard is met (Compl. ¶17).
’522 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Design Feature (from ’522 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Valuxe Accused Products) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of the mattress topper | The complaint alleges the overall design of the Valuxe Accused Products is "substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶17 | FIG. 1-8 |
| An anti-slip design on the bottom surface | The accused products are marketed as having an "Anti-slip design," which is depicted in product photography. A side-by-side comparison image shows the texture of the accused product's bottom surface (Compl. p. 7). | ¶16 | FIG. 6 |
| Adjustable straps to secure the topper to the mattress | The accused products feature and are marketed with an "Adjustable elastic strap." | ¶16 | FIG. 8 |
| Diagonal placement of straps at each corner | Product photography shows straps emerging from the corners of the accused product to wrap around the mattress. | ¶16 | FIG. 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question in design patent infringement is the scope of the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The dispute may focus on whether the combination of an anti-slip bottom and corner straps is common in the prior art, which would narrow the scope of protection to the specific visual execution of those elements.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the degree of visual similarity between the specific patterns and strap configurations. The analysis may hinge on whether differences between the patented design's texture patterns (as shown in FIG. 7 and 8) and those on the accused products are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression for an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: Not applicable.
- Context and Importance: Unlike utility patents, design patents do not rely on textual claim terms that require judicial construction. The single claim incorporates the drawings, and its scope is determined by the overall visual appearance of the design shown in those drawings. Therefore, the dispute will not center on the definition of a specific term but on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to compare the patented design as a whole to the design of the accused products. Practitioners will focus on visual comparisons and arguments regarding the prior art's effect on the observer's perception, rather than briefing on claim term meaning.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendant's own acts of selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant "has willfully and knowingly infringed" the ’522 Patent (Compl. ¶15). The pleading does not specify the factual basis for this allegation, such as whether Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual similarity: Would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into thinking the accused Valuxe product is the same as the design protected by the ’522 Patent? The outcome may depend on how the trier of fact weighs the overall visual impression against any minor differences in the specific execution of the texture patterns or strap hardware.
- A related question will concern the influence of prior art and function: The court will need to consider the landscape of prior art mattress topper designs. The extent to which functional elements—such as anti-slip surfaces and securing straps—are prevalent in the market may influence the scope of the patented design and whether an ordinary observer would focus on the purely ornamental aspects of the competing designs.