DCT
3:25-cv-00810
Viscosoft Inc v. Lishui Xingquan Tongrui Trading Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Viscosoft, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Lishui Xingquan Tongrui Trading Co., Ltd (China), d/b/a Joyride Sleep
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen Stahl & Kilbourne, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00810, W.D.N.C., 10/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign company that does not have a place of business in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mattress toppers, sold in the U.S. via online platforms, infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a mattress topper.
- Technical Context: The dispute relates to consumer bedding products, a market where ornamental design and visual appearance can be significant product differentiators.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
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 |
| 2025-10-17 | 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. D969522, "Mattress Topper," issued November 15, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the D'522 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. It protects the purely ornamental, non-functional aspects of a mattress topper design.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a mattress topper as depicted in its drawings (D’522 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The claimed ornamental design consists of a combination of features, including a top surface with a uniform grid of small circles (D’522 Patent, Fig. 1, 7), a bottom surface with a distinct repeating pattern of interlocking ovals (D’522 Patent, Fig. 6), and adjustable elastic straps positioned diagonally at each corner, featuring a specific buckle design (D’522 Patent, Fig. 8).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a unique aesthetic for a mattress topper, which may serve as a source identifier and a point of differentiation in the competitive consumer bedding market (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for the mattress topper, as shown and described" (D’522 Patent, CLAIM).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the article in the patent's drawings, including the following key ornamental elements:
- The overall rectangular shape with rounded corners.
- The surface ornamentation on the top side of the topper.
- The surface ornamentation on the bottom side of the topper.
- The configuration and appearance of the diagonal corner straps and their adjustment buckles.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- "Joyride Sleep Accused Products," which are mattress toppers sold by Defendant in the United States via e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are mattress toppers alleged to embody Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶14). The complaint includes photographs of the accused products, highlighting features it labels "Adjustable Elastic Straps" and "Anti-Slip Silicone Dots" on the bottom surface. (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges these products are marketed and sold throughout the United States, including in North Carolina, via Amazon's "Fulfillment by Amazon" program (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9). A photograph provided in the complaint shows the accused product's corner strap assembly and bottom surface pattern (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint alleges that the accused products are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eye of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶17). The following chart summarizes the visual correspondence alleged between the design patent's figures and the accused product's features as depicted in the complaint.
| Claim Element (Visual Feature from D'522 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Visual Feature of Accused Product) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for the bottom surface, including a repeating surface pattern and diagonal corner straps. | The accused product's bottom surface, which features a repeating pattern and diagonal corner straps. A visual comparison is provided in the complaint. | ¶17; p. 7 | col. 1:40 |
| The ornamental design for the corner strap assembly, including the strap's diagonal placement and buckle appearance. | The accused product's "Adjustable Elastic Straps" are placed diagonally at the corners and include an adjustment buckle. | ¶16; p. 6 | col. 1:43-44 |
| The ornamental design for the top surface, consisting of a grid of dots. | The accused product's top surface features a textured pattern. A photo in the complaint shows the accused product's top surface design. | ¶16; p. 6 | col. 1:34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint describes certain features of the patented design in functional terms, such as an "anti-slip design on the bottom" and "adjustable straps to secure the mattress topper" (Compl. ¶11). This raises the question of whether, and to what extent, these allegedly functional aspects can be considered part of the protected "ornamental design." A court may need to filter out functional elements from the scope of the claim before applying the infringement test.
- Technical Questions: The core of the infringement analysis will be a visual comparison. This raises the factual question of whether an ordinary observer, giving the matter such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint is intended to support this conclusion (Compl. p. 7).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the drawings rather than the definition of specific words. The key analysis concerns the scope of "the ornamental design."
- The Term: The ornamental design for the mattress topper, as shown and described.
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of this "claim" will define the scope of the patent's protection. The central task for the court is to understand the overall visual impression created by the patented design and to distinguish its protected ornamental features from any unprotected functional elements. Practitioners may focus on this analysis because it directly precedes the infringement comparison.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims the overall visual impression of the mattress topper. This holistic view, combining the top pattern, bottom pattern, and corner strap configuration, could support a finding of infringement even if minor details differ, so long as the overall aesthetic is substantially similar.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's drawings depict specific details, such as the precise repeating pattern on the bottom surface (D’522 Patent, Fig. 6, 8) and the particular design of the strap buckle (D’522 Patent, Fig. 8). These details could be interpreted as limitations on the claim's scope, meaning a product with a visibly different pattern or buckle design might not infringe. Furthermore, any features deemed primarily functional may be excluded from the scope of the claimed design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not specifically allege indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and 289 for making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "has willfully infringed and continues to infringe" the D'522 Patent (Compl. ¶14). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support an allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of protectable scope: To what extent are the asserted design features, such as the anti-slip bottom pattern and corner securing straps, dictated by function rather than ornamentation? The court's determination of which visual elements are protectable will define the scope of the design for the infringement analysis.
- The central factual question will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused mattress topper substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'522 Patent? This analysis will likely focus on the similarity of the surface patterns and the configuration of the corner straps as depicted in the patent and the accused products.