DCT

2:25-cv-11995

Happy Products Inc v. Boscov's Department Store LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-11995, D.N.J., 06/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants maintaining regular and established places of business in the District of New Jersey, and on Unbeatablesale.com, Inc. being a New Jersey resident corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ retail sales of the "Pillow Pad" media support device infringe patents related to a multi-angle, soft tablet stand.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to soft, multi-sided, pillow-like stands designed to hold electronic devices like tablets at various viewing angles for hands-free use.
  • Key Procedural History: The '479 patent is a reissue of the '454 patent. Plaintiff previously initiated an action against the product's manufacturer, Ontel Products Corp., and successfully used Amazon's Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation (UPNE) program to have the accused product removed from Amazon's platform in June 2021. The current suit targets retailers of the same product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-10-28 Earliest Priority Date ('454 & '479 Patents)
2017-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,642,454 Issue Date
2018-11 Ontel (manufacturer) allegedly gained knowledge of '454 patent
2019-02 Ontel begins advertising the accused Pillow Pad product
2021-03-23 U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,479 Issue Date
2021-04-01 Plaintiff files complaint via Amazon's UPNE program
2021-06 Accused Pillow Pad product removed from Amazon platform
2023-06-02 Defendant Boscov's allegedly received actual notice of infringement
2023-06-16 Defendant BJ's allegedly received actual notice of infringement
2024-10-23 Defendant UBS allegedly received actual notice of infringement
2025-06-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,479, “Multiple Viewing Angle Media Support,” issued March 23, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that holding media devices like tablets for extended periods can cause hand and arm fatigue, and using traditional pillows to prop them up often results in suboptimal viewing angles (RE48,479 Patent, col. 2:23-27). Furthermore, as a user shifts position (e.g., from sitting to lying down), the required support angle changes (RE48,479 Patent, col. 2:27-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a soft, multi-sided support apparatus, described as a semi-rigid pillow, that provides multiple, distinct viewing angles for a media device (’479 Patent, col. 3:7-13). It features three support sides arranged around a central axis, each comprising a flat "support back" and a protruding "support edge" to hold the device. By rotating the apparatus to rest on one of its different sides, the user can select the desired viewing angle, allowing for stable, hands-free use in various positions, such as on a table, in one's lap, or while lying down (’479 Patent, FIG. 1-2; col. 4:9-18).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a single, lightweight device that offers multiple, stable, and ergonomically-considered viewing angles for hands-free media consumption in various common postures (’479 Patent, col. 2:31-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶¶157-158).
  • Independent Claim 12 requires, among other things:
    • A body with a first, second, and third support back disposed about a central axis.
    • First, second, and third support edges, each disposed between two support backs, configured to support a media device at different support angles.
    • Each edge support has an edge support width and an edge angle between 85 and 120 degrees relative to an adjacent support back.
    • The apparatus is configured to be rotated to rest in three different positions, providing three different viewing angles.
  • Independent Claim 1 is more specific, requiring:
    • Three support sides, each with a back support and an edge support, connected to a "solid interior."
    • Specific geometric relationships, including an edge support width of 2 cm, an edge angle of 90 degrees, and specific plane angles for each back support (60, 80, and 40 degrees).
    • The "solid interior is a pillow covered in fabric" and provides specific viewing angles (36, 74, and 49 degrees).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but this is standard practice.

U.S. Patent No. 9,642,454, “Multiple Viewing Angle Media Support,” issued May 9, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the physical fatigue associated with holding media devices and the inadequacy of traditional pillows for providing stable, well-angled support (’454 Patent, col. 2:23-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a pillow-like apparatus with a triangular cross-section, providing three surfaces of varying angles to support a media device (’454 Patent, col. 2:31-36). As described in the detailed description and illustrated in Figure 2, the user can rotate the device to achieve different viewing angles suitable for various situations, such as sitting or lying down (’454 Patent, col. 4:9-18).
  • Technical Importance: This approach created a single, soft, and versatile accessory for hands-free viewing of media on devices like tablets and e-readers (’454 Patent, col. 2:15-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires, among other things:
    • An apparatus with three support sides connected to a "solid interior," where each side has a back support and an edge support.
    • A top of each back support is in physical communication with an adjacent edge support "clockwise about a central axis."
    • The claim recites highly specific dimensions and angles, including an edge support width of 2 cm, an edge angle of 90 degrees, and fixed plane angles for the three back supports.
    • The solid interior is described as a "pillow covered in fabric" that produces three specific viewing angles: 36, 74, and 49 degrees.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Pillow Pad" or "Pill-O-Pad," a media support device manufactured by non-party Ontel Products Corp. and sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶1-2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Pillow Pad as a soft tablet stand that provides three different viewing angles when it is flipped to rest on each of its three sides (Compl. ¶2). A side-by-side photograph in the complaint shows the Pillow Pad and the Plaintiff's "Flippy" product, both appearing as soft, triangular prism-shaped devices with a ledge for holding a tablet (Compl. p. 2). The complaint alleges the Pillow Pad is a "knock-off copy" marketed as a lower-cost alternative to the Flippy and sold through major retail channels, but is of "vastly inferior quality" (Compl. ¶¶2, 98-99). A screenshot from a Pillow Pad commercial shows it being promoted for its "Innovative Ledge Design!" (Compl. p. 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE48,479 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a body having a first support back, a second support back, and a third support back disposed about a central axis; The Pillow Pad is a three-sided soft stand that can be rotated to change the viewing angle, as depicted in complaint visuals. ¶2 col. 3:20-23
a first support edge disposed between the first support back and the second support back... a second support edge... a third support edge... The Pillow Pad incorporates ledges on each side to hold a media device, which the complaint alleges were copied from its own product's design. ¶¶2, 90-91 col. 3:23-29
wherein each edge support comprises an edge support width with an edge angle in the range of 85 to 120 degrees to an adjacent support back... The complaint alleges the Pillow Pad is a "knock-off copy" that was "copied directly" from the Plaintiff's product, including its functional and design elements. ¶¶2, 91, 93 col. 4:60-63
wherein the media support apparatus is configured to be rotated about the central axis so that the body can rest on a horizontal support in any one of three positions... The complaint explicitly states and visually depicts that the Pillow Pad provides three viewing angles obtained by flipping the device to rest on each of its three sides. ¶2 col. 4:19-22
...to provide a first viewing angle... a second viewing angle, and a third viewing angle... [that] are different from one another. The diagram in the complaint shows the product providing three distinct viewing angles. ¶2 col. 4:9-18

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the accused Pillow Pad, as sold by Defendants, meets the specific geometric limitations of the claims. While visually similar, a defense may focus on demonstrating that its angles, dimensions, or the orientation of its surfaces (e.g., the "clockwise about the central axis" limitation) differ from those claimed. The complaint's reliance on an equivalents theory for the '454 patent (Compl. ¶94) suggests a potential dispute over literal infringement.
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 of both patents requires a "solid interior." The complaint includes customer reviews describing the accused product as "hollow in the middle" and "flimsy" (Compl. p. 22; ¶100). This raises the question of whether the accused product contains a "solid interior" as the term would be construed. The fact that independent claim 12 of the '479 patent recites a more general "body" may become a central point of the infringement analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "solid interior" (from Claim 1 of both patents) versus "body" (from Claim 12 of the '479 patent)
  • Context and Importance: The physical composition of the accused product is a point of emphasis in the complaint, which alleges it is of inferior quality and "flimsy" (Compl. ¶¶99-100). The construction of these terms is critical because if the accused product is found not to have a "solid interior," it may not infringe the highly specific Claim 1. The infringement case would then hinge on the broader Claim 12 and its term "body." Practitioners may focus on whether "body" must also be construed as "solid" based on the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the distinct term "body" in Claim 12, an independent claim added during reissue, while retaining "solid interior" in Claim 1, suggests the patentee intended the terms to have different scopes. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, this would support a construction where "body" is not limited to being solid.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention as a "pillow" made of foam with a specific force deflection, and Figure 1 depicts a unitary, solid object (’479 Patent, col. 3:3-9). A party could argue that the term "body" should be limited to the only disclosed embodiments, which are solid foam structures.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement against all three Defendants. The allegations are based on Defendants continuing to sell the accused Pillow Pad after receiving actual notice of the alleged infringement. The complaint cites specific dates for this notice: June 2, 2023 for Boscov's; June 16, 2023 for BJ's; and October 23, 2024 for UBS (Compl. ¶¶78-79, 142, 160-162). The complaint also alleges constructive notice based on Plaintiff's marking of its own products with the patent numbers (Compl. ¶¶80-81). A screenshot of the Boscov's website offering the Pillow Pad for sale is dated May 27, 2023, just prior to the alleged actual notice date (Compl. p. 30).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the term "body" in the broader reissued Claim 12 be interpreted differently from the "solid interior" required by Claim 1? The resolution of this question may be decisive, given the complaint's own characterization of the accused product's allegedly "flimsy" and potentially non-solid construction.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of geometric correspondence: beyond visual similarity, does the accused Pillow Pad actually embody the specific angular and orientational limitations recited in the asserted claims? The dispute may evolve into a technical comparison of product exemplars, where precise measurements could reveal legally significant differences from the claimed invention.
  • The case also presents a focused question of retailer liability and willfulness: did the Defendants' alleged continuation of sales after receiving specific notice of infringement via email constitute willful conduct? This shifts the legal inquiry from the product's creation by a non-party to the specific knowledge and actions of the retailer Defendants, which could substantially impact potential damages.