DCT
3:25-cv-00811
Viscosoft Inc v. Hangzhou Shangwai Trading Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Viscosoft, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Hangzhou Shangwai Trading Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen Stahl & Kilbourne, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00811, W.D.N.C., 10/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign company with no place of business in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mattress toppers, sold in the U.S. via e-commerce platforms, infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a mattress topper.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer bedding accessories market, where product appearance and features designed to prevent slippage are key differentiating factors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
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 Issues |
| 2025-10-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D969,522 S1 - "Mattress Topper"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D969,522 S1, "Mattress Topper," issued November 15, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, as is typical for design patents. The claimed design addresses the ornamental appearance of a mattress topper, implicitly addressing the need for a distinct and aesthetically pleasing product in the marketplace.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a mattress topper as depicted in its drawings (’522 Patent, Claim). The claimed design consists of the visual characteristics of the article, including a top surface with a grid of small circles (Id., Fig. 1, 7), a bottom surface with a repeating, textured anti-slip pattern, and adjustable straps positioned diagonally at each of the four corners to secure the topper to a mattress (Id., Fig. 6, 8). The combination of these specific surface patterns and the configuration of the corner straps constitutes the overall ornamental design.
- Technical Importance: The design integrates aesthetic surface treatments with functional elements like securing straps and an anti-slip bottom, features that are significant for consumer appeal and performance in the bedding market (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the design as shown in the drawings. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for the mattress topper, as shown and described." (’522 Patent, Claim).
- The essential ornamental elements of the claimed design are:
- A top surface with a uniform pattern of discrete dots or circles.
- A bottom surface with a distinct, repeating texture.
- Adjustable straps originating from the corners and extending diagonally inward.
- The overall visual impression created by the combination of these features.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "Sinweek Accused Products," identified as mattress toppers sold by Defendant Sinweek in the United States through e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com (Compl. ¶4, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are mattress toppers that incorporate specific design features, including a "Non-slip Bottom" and "Adjustable Straps" intended to keep the topper in place on a bed (Compl. ¶16). A product photograph provided in the complaint shows an accused topper with a textured bottom surface and a corner strap. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges these products are marketed and sold throughout the United States (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Sinweek Accused Products are "substantially the same" as the patented design from this perspective (Compl. ¶17). A product photograph in the complaint shows the accused product's non-slip bottom and adjustable straps (Compl. ¶16).
D969,522 S1 Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature | Alleged Infringing Feature | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ornamental design for a mattress topper including a textured bottom surface and adjustable corner straps. | The Sinweek Accused Products are mattress toppers with a design that allegedly embodies the patented design. | ¶14, ¶17 | Fig. 6 |
| A textured, anti-slip pattern on the bottom surface of the topper. | The accused products are marketed as having a "Non-slip Bottom" with a textured appearance. | ¶16 | Fig. 8 |
| Adjustable straps positioned at each corner to secure the topper. | The accused products are marketed as having "Adjustable Straps" at the corners. | ¶16 | Fig. 8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be one of visual comparison under the ordinary observer test. The court will need to determine if the overall visual impression of the accused product's design is "substantially the same" as the overall visual impression of the design claimed in the ’522 Patent.
- Technical Questions: While design patents protect non-functional ornamentation, the presence of functional elements like straps and non-slip surfaces is relevant. A key question may be whether the specific ornamental execution of the anti-slip pattern and strap configuration on the accused product is substantially similar to that shown in the patent drawings, or if differences in these details are sufficient to distinguish the designs in the eye of an ordinary observer.
V. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead facts supporting claims for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement), focusing instead on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and 289 (Compl. ¶15).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "has willfully and knowingly infringed" the ’522 Patent (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not specify whether this allegation is based on pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, giving the level of attention a typical mattress topper purchaser would, find the overall ornamental design of the accused Sinweek product to be substantially the same as that depicted in the ’522 Patent, leading to deception?
- A key evidentiary question will concern the impact of prior art: how do prior designs of mattress toppers inform the scope of the patented design? The analysis will likely focus on whether the specific combination and execution of the surface patterns and strap configuration in the patent are sufficiently distinct from the prior art and whether the accused product copies that distinct overall appearance.