DCT
1:17-cv-07468
Serta Simmons Bedding LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC (Delaware) and Dreamwell, Ltd. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Casper Sleep Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDermott Will & Emery LLP
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-07468, S.D.N.Y., 09/29/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant Casper has its principal place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Casper Wave mattress infringes three patents related to methods and apparatuses for creating zoned support in foam mattresses by using channels and inserts with different mechanical properties.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-layer foam mattress construction, specifically the use of targeted reinforcements to provide varying levels of firmness across the mattress surface to better accommodate the human body.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a family sharing a common specification. No prior litigation or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-10-17 | Priority Date for ’763, ’173, and ’935 Patents |
| 2006-05-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,036,173 Issued |
| 2008-09-16 | U.S. Patent No. 7,424,763 Issued |
| 2014-04-01 | Casper launches original mattress (approx.) |
| 2014-12-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,918,935 Issued |
| 2017-08-15 | Casper Wave mattress launched |
| 2017-09-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,424,763 - "Channel-Cut Cushion Supports" (Issued Sep. 16, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that mattresses made of homogenous foam do not distribute localized forces well, resulting in uniform but non-optimized support that is not well-adapted to the variations in the weight and shape of a human body (Compl. ¶9; ’763 Patent, col. 1:17-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by creating "channels" within a foam mattress body and placing "inserts" into those channels. These inserts are made of a material with a different mechanical characteristic (e.g., greater firmness) than the surrounding foam, allowing for the creation of customized support zones within the mattress (Compl. ¶15; ’763 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:39-52). The patent describes that these inserts can be, for example, foam with a higher firmness or pocketed spring coils (Compl. ¶19; ’763 Patent, col. 2:62-67, col. 3:15-18).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows mattress designers to engineer specific support characteristics for different parts of a sleeper's body, such as providing firmer support for the lumbar region while allowing for softer zones at the shoulders and hips (’763 Patent, col. 2:47-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A mattress comprising a body made of foam with various surfaces (top, bottom, sides, ends).
- At least one of the top and bottom surfaces includes a plurality of channels extending perpendicularly into the body.
- A plurality of inserts, each having a mechanical characteristic different from the foam.
- Each insert is "affixed" within one of the channels.
- Each insert reinforces the body.
U.S. Patent No. 7,036,173 - "Channel-Cut Cushion Supports" (Issued May 2, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with its family member, the '173 Patent addresses the inability of standard foam mattresses to provide targeted, non-uniform support where needed (’173 Patent, col. 1:8-14).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method of manufacturing a mattress with zoned support. The method involves providing a foam body, locating a region where increased support is desired, forming a channel in that region, and affixing an insert with greater firmness into the channel (’173 Patent, Abstract). A specific limitation in the asserted claim requires that the step of "forming the channel" comprises "assembling a plurality of rectangular foam pieces into a mattress that includes the channel" (’173 Patent, col. 5:30-32).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a specific manufacturing process for creating zoned support, which could be an alternative to simply carving channels out of a single, solid block of foam (’173 Patent, col. 5:35-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 5 (Compl. ¶60).
- The essential steps of Claim 5 are:
- Providing a body of foam shaped and sized for use as a mattress.
- Locating a region of the body where increased support is desired.
- Forming a channel into the body within that region.
- Affixing an insert into the channel, with the insert having a greater firmness than the foam body.
- A "wherein" clause specifying that the step of forming the channel comprises assembling a plurality of rectangular foam pieces into a mattress that includes the channel.
U.S. Patent No. 8,918,935 - "Channel-Cut Cushion Supports" (Issued Dec. 30, 2014)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of manufacturing a mattress by assembling rectangular foam pieces to form a body with a channel. An insert with planar top and bottom surfaces and a different mechanical property is affixed into the channel. A key distinction is the explicit requirement that the insert "does not entirely fill the channel" (Compl. ¶89; ’935 Patent, Claim 10).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 10 (Compl. ¶89).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the manufacturing process for the Casper Wave mattress, which involves assembling five foam layers and inserting a "Polymer Network" into channels cut into one layer, infringes this method claim. Specific allegations, supported by a photographic exhibit, contend that the polymer inserts do not entirely fill the channels in the accused mattress (Compl. ¶¶90, 93, 99).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The Casper Wave mattress (Compl. ¶25).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Casper Wave is a multi-layer foam mattress described by Casper as its "most innovative mattress" (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28). Its key feature is a "Polymer Network" situated between a "High Resiliency Foam" layer and a "Support Foam" layer (Compl. ¶30). This network consists of elastic polymer strips fitted into channels that are cut into the bottom surface of the High Resiliency Foam layer (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 31). This construction is marketed as providing "targeted back and core support" and "firmer support where you need it most" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges this feature is responsible for a significant price premium over Casper's original mattress (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 40). A diagram from Casper's website, included as Figure 5 in the complaint, depicts the five-layer construction of the accused mattress (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’763 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body made of foam having a mechanical characteristic | The "High Resiliency Foam" layer of the Casper Wave mattress is a body made of foam. | ¶47 | col. 2:1-4 |
| the body having a top surface, a bottom surface, a first and second side surfaces and a first and second end surfaces | The "High Resiliency Foam" layer has the recited surfaces. | ¶48 | col. 2:11-15 |
| at least one of the top and bottom surfaces including a plurality of channels extending into the body perpendicularly therefrom | A plurality of channels is cut into the bottom surface of the "High Resiliency Foam" layer. | ¶49 | col. 2:32-33 |
| a plurality of inserts | The "Polymer Network" of the Casper Wave comprises a plurality of inserts. | ¶50 | col. 2:33-36 |
| each insert having a mechanical characteristic different from the mechanical characteristic of the foam | The polymer inserts are described as "reinforced" and providing "firmer support" than the surrounding High Resiliency Foam. | ¶51 | col. 2:65-67 |
| [each insert] affixed within one of the plurality of channels | The inserts comprising the Polymer Network are affixed within the channels in the High Resiliency Foam layer. | ¶52 | col. 3:39-41 |
| each insert reinforcing the body | Each insert provides "firmer support" to the area of the mattress including the channels, thereby reinforcing the foam layer. | ¶53 | col. 2:44-46 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Casper's "Polymer Network" constitutes "inserts" as that term is used in the patent. While the specification discloses non-foam inserts like springs, the primary embodiments focus on pocket coils and foam, raising the question of whether an "elastic polymer" network falls within the claim's scope.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the inserts to be "affixed" within the channels. The complaint alleges the polymer strips are "fitted into" the channels and their position is "maintained using an adhesive" (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32). The nature and permanence of this "affixing" will likely be a point of factual dispute.
’173 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a body of foam shaped and sized for use as a mattress | The manufacturing process includes providing five foam layers, which are collectively shaped and sized for use as a mattress. | ¶64 | col. 5:22-23 |
| locating a region of the body where increased support is desired | Casper's marketing identifies "the curves of your back and hips" as a region needing "firmer support." | ¶65 | col. 5:24-25 |
| forming a channel into the body within the region | During manufacturing, channels are formed in the "High Resiliency Foam" layer. | ¶66 | col. 5:26-27 |
| affixing an insert into the channel, the insert having a greater firmness than the body of foam | The "Polymer Network" of inserts is affixed in the channels and is described as providing "firmer support." | ¶67 | col. 5:27-29 |
| wherein forming the channel comprises assembling a plurality of rectangular foam pieces into a mattress that includes the channel | The five rectangular foam layers of the Casper Wave mattress are assembled into a final product that includes the channel. | ¶68 | col. 5:30-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of the "wherein" clause will be critical. The patent states this clause describes the "forming the channel" step. The complaint alleges that assembling the five foam layers satisfies this limitation because the final assembly "includes the channel." However, the patent language "assembling...foam pieces into a mattress that includes the channel" (’173 Patent, col. 5:30-32) could be interpreted more narrowly to mean the act of assembly itself creates the channel, for instance by leaving a gap between adjacent foam pieces. Casper's alleged process of cutting a channel into one solid layer and then assembling it with others may not meet this narrower construction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "assembling a plurality of rectangular foam pieces into a mattress that includes the channel" (’173 Patent, Claim 5)
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement allegation for the '173 Patent. Its construction will determine whether Casper's manufacturing process of laminating pre-formed layers, one of which has a channel cut into it, falls within the scope of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the plain language only requires that the final, assembled product "includes the channel," regardless of how the channel was formed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides context that may support a narrower view: "the body 12 may be formed of a number of rectangular foam sections assembled so that the assembled body 12 includes the channels 19" (’173 Patent, col. 5:40-42). Practitioners may focus on this language because it suggests the assembly of separate sections is the mechanism that results in a channel, which is distinct from cutting a channel into a monolithic layer that is later assembled with other layers.
The Term: "wherein the insert does not entirely fill the channel" (’935 Patent, Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation appears to be a key differentiator for the '935 patent. The complaint’s ability to provide clear visual evidence on this point makes it a potentially significant element of the case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is straightforward, but disputes could arise over how much of a gap is required to "not entirely fill" the channel.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint provides a close-up photograph in Figure 43, which purports to show a visible gap between the polymer insert and the channel walls in the accused product (Compl. ¶99, Fig. 43). If accurate, this photograph provides strong intrinsic evidence from the complaint itself that Casper's product meets the literal terms of this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal causes of action only allege direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and § 271(g) (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 59, 74, 88, 105). No specific facts are alleged to support theories of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for willful infringement and does not allege any pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant. It states that notice of infringement has been given "at least by virtue of service or acknowledged delivery of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 69, 100, 116), which may lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willfulness but does not allege pre-filing willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the method limitation "assembling a plurality of rectangular foam pieces into a mattress that includes the channel," as claimed in the '173 and '935 patents, be construed to cover a manufacturing process where a channel is first cut into a single foam layer, which is then laminated with other layers? Or does the claim require the assembly of separate foam pieces to be the direct cause of the channel's formation?
- A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: does the accused product's "Polymer Network" meet the definitions of an "insert" that is "affixed" as required by the '763 patent? Furthermore, for the '935 patent, a key evidentiary question will be whether the polymer inserts "do not entirely fill the channel," a contention for which the plaintiff has supplied preliminary photographic evidence.