DCT

3:22-cv-06534

Green Pet Shop Enterprises LLC v. Comfort Revolution LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-06534, D.N.J., 11/09/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the Defendant's principal place of business is located in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cooling pillow products infringe a patent related to pressure-activated, recharging cooling platforms.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns non-electric, portable pads that provide a cooling effect for pets or humans through a pressure-activated chemical composition.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent a notice of infringement letter, including a claim chart for claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, to the Defendant approximately three months before filing the complaint. The complaint also alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patent upon its publication.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-04-14 Earliest Priority Date (’685 Patent)
2014-01-01 (approx.) Plaintiff began marking its "Cool Pet Pad" with patent numbers
2022-06-16 '685 Patent first published by USPTO; alleged date of Defendant's awareness
2022-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,375,685 Issued
2022-08-16 Plaintiff sent notice of infringement letter to Defendant
2022-11-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,375,685 - "Pressure Activated Recharging Cooling Platform"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,375,685, "Pressure Activated Recharging Cooling Platform," issued July 5, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses limitations of existing pet cooling beds, which often require electricity (negating portability) or use ice packs that melt and need replacement, making them inconvenient. (U.S. Patent No. 11,375,685, col. 1:35-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layered platform containing a chemical composition that initiates a cooling, endothermic reaction when pressure is applied (e.g., by a pet lying on it). When the pressure is removed, the composition "recharges" through a reverse reaction, allowing it to be used repeatedly without external power or replenishment. (U.S. Patent No. 11,375,685, Abstract; col. 4:41-45). The structure includes features like channels that may help prevent the composition from dispersing under pressure. (U.S. Patent No. 11,375,685, col. 2:49-53).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a self-contained, portable, and reusable cooling solution that does not rely on external power sources or consumable cooling agents like ice. (U.S. Patent No. 11,375,685, col. 5:32-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶11, ¶14).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A cooling platform comprising:
    • a temperature regulation layer comprising a cooling composition that absorbs heat when activated and releases heat when deactivated,
    • wherein the cooling composition undergoes an endothermic reaction when activated,
    • wherein the endothermic reaction is activated at least partially by an application of pressure, and
    • wherein the cooling platform is repeatedly activatable and deactivatable.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The lead accused product is the "Therapedic Cooling Gel & Memory Foam Pillow." (Compl. ¶10). The complaint also names a list of other "Hydraluxe" and "Ultraluxe" branded cooling pillows and toppers sold under the "Comfort Revolution" brand. (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as having "cooling gel." (Compl. ¶12). It does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific composition of the gel or its mechanism of operation. The complaint implies commercial significance by listing numerous product variations. (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart provided to the Defendant pre-suit but does not include this exhibit or its contents. (Compl. ¶14). The infringement allegations in the complaint are therefore general. The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is "covered by at least claim 1 of the '685 Patent" (Compl. ¶11) and that the Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports products that "fall within the scope of at least one claim" of the patent. (Compl. ¶18). Without the specific element-by-element breakdown from a claim chart, the precise infringement theory is not detailed in the filing.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The central dispute will likely focus on the mechanism of the accused "cooling gel." A key question is whether the gel functions through a pressure-activated, reversible endothermic reaction as required by claim 1, or if it provides a cooling sensation through a different physical principle, such as passive heat conduction or phase-change material properties not dependent on pressure for activation and deactivation.
  • Scope Question: A related question of claim scope is whether the term "repeatedly activatable and deactivatable," tied directly to the application and release of pressure, reads on the lifecycle and function of the accused product's cooling gel.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "repeatedly activatable and deactivatable"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's "recharging" capability, which distinguishes it from single-use cooling packs. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's cooling function can be "deactivated" and then "reactivated" multiple times simply by removing and reapplying pressure. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the chemical process directly to a user action (pressure).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a number of cycles or a required efficiency for the reactivation, which may support a reading on any product that demonstrates some level of reusable, pressure-moderated cooling. (’685 Patent, col. 6:11-12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this process in the context of a chemical reaction reversing upon the "alleviation of pressure." (’685 Patent, col. 5:39-41). It further links this to Le Chatelier's principle, suggesting a specific, reversible chemical equilibrium is the underlying mechanism. (’685 Patent, col. 4:43-45). This could support a narrower construction requiring a true, pressure-driven reversible reaction rather than another form of thermal regeneration.

  • The Term: "cooling composition"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical, as infringement hinges on whether the accused "cooling gel" meets the functional and compositional requirements of the claims.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the composition functionally: it "absorbs heat when activated," "releases heat when deactivated," and "undergoes an endothermic reaction." (’685 Patent, col. 6:2-7). This functional language could be argued to cover any substance that performs these steps, regardless of its specific chemical makeup.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment of the composition: "thirty percent carboxymethyl cellulose; twenty percent water; thirty-five percent polyacrylamide; and at least fifteen percent alginic acid." (’685 Patent, col. 4:46-50). A defendant may argue that the claims should be interpreted in light of this specific, and only, disclosed example, potentially limiting the scope of the term.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "inducement of infringement," the body of the complaint and the sole count for infringement only allege direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). (Compl. ¶18; Prayer for Relief ¶D). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’685 patent "since at least approximately June 16, 2022, when the ’685 Patent was first published," and again upon receipt of a notice of infringement letter on August 16, 2022. (Compl. ¶19). The complaint further alleges that Defendant has "continued to manufacture, import and offer for sale the Accused Product" after receiving notice. (Compl. ¶15). These allegations form the basis for a claim of post-notice willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two fundamental questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does the Defendant's "cooling gel" operate via a pressure-activated, reversible endothermic reaction as claimed in the ’685 patent, or does it achieve its cooling effect through an alternative, non-infringing physical process?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused products are "repeatedly activatable and deactivatable" in the manner required by the claims—specifically, that the cooling function is depleted by pressure and restored by the removal of pressure, consistent with the patent's "recharging" concept?