DCT

5:16-cv-01034

Leach v. Pharmedoc Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:16-cv-01034, W.D. Okla., 10/10/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on an alleged stream of commerce, wherein Defendant Saint Glory manufactures the accused products in China and ships them to Defendant Pharmedoc in California, which then sells the products nationwide, including into Oklahoma, through its own website and storefronts on amazon.com, walmart.com, and wayfair.com.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "C-Shape Full Body Pillow" infringes a patent related to a full-body support pillow with a specific C/J-shaped configuration.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns therapeutic and support body pillows designed to provide simultaneous support for a user's head and legs, particularly for side-sleepers or pregnant women.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Leachco, Inc. is identified as the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint also asserts that Plaintiff has complied with the patent marking statute by affixing patent numbers to its own commercial products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-19 ’164 Patent Priority Date
2002-12-31 ’164 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-12 Alleged shipment of accused products to U.S.
2016-10-31 Alleged shipment of accused products to U.S.
2017-10-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,499,164 - "BODY PILLOW WITH HORSESHOE-SHAPED TOP AND J-SHAPED BOTTOM", issued December 31, 2002

The Invention Explained

The patent background describes a need for body pillows that can simultaneously accommodate and support both the upper portion (head) and lower portion (legs) of a person's body (’164 Patent, col. 1:8-12). The detailed description further notes that for pregnant women, it is desirable "to keep a space between their legs so as to alleviate the heat which would otherwise occur if the legs were kept together" (’164 Patent, col. 4:17-20).

The invention is a unitary, elongated body pillow with three distinct sections: an upper "horseshoe-shaped" portion to support the head, a lower "J-shaped" portion to be placed between the user's legs, and a "straight portion" connecting the two ends (’164 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-17). This integrated design provides comprehensive support for a person lying on their side, as illustrated in Figure 7 of the patent.

The invention provides a specific, all-in-one ergonomic shape for full-body support, obviating the need for multiple separate pillows to achieve a similar supportive posture for side-sleepers (’164 Patent, col. 4:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • A body pillow having a top which is essentially in the shape of a horseshoe for accommodating an upper end of a person
    • and a bottom which is essentially in the shape of a J for accommodating a lower end of the person,
    • a substantially cylindrical straight portion connecting the horseshoe-shaped top with the J-shaped bottom,
    • the cross-sectional diameter of the body pillow being between 7 and 12 inches,
    • the horseshoe shaped top constituting a semi-toroidal member having a diameter of about 25 to 26 inches
    • and terminating in a foot spaced from the straight portion extending parallel to the straight portion and forming therewith a curved opening.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is a body pillow originally designated as a "J-Shaped Full Body Pillow" and currently designated as a "C-Shape Full Body Pillow" (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused product is a pillow with one "horseshoe-shaped" end and an opposite "J-shaped" end, connected by a "cylindrical straight portion" (Compl. ¶21). The product is allegedly "shaped to permit an adult female, lying on her side, to rest her head against the horseshoe-shaped end, and to receive the J-shaped end between her legs" (Compl. ¶22). A photograph from Defendant's catalog, included as part of Exhibit B, is referenced to show this configuration in use (Compl. ¶22). The product is allegedly manufactured by Defendant Saint Glory in China and imported and sold in the U.S. by Defendant Pharmedoc through major e-commerce channels, including amazon.com, walmart.com, and its own website (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’164 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A body pillow having a top which is essentially in the shape of a horseshoe for accommodating an upper end of a person... The accused pillow includes "one end that is horseshoe-shaped," as shown in Exhibit C, which is shaped to permit a user to "rest her head against the horseshoe-shaped end." ¶¶21, 22 col. 3:12-13
...and a bottom which is essentially in the shape of a J for accommodating a lower end of the person... The accused pillow has "an opposite end that is J-shaped," which a user can "receive ... between her legs." ¶¶21, 22 col. 3:14-17
...a substantially cylindrical straight portion connecting the horseshoe-shaped top with the J-shaped bottom... The ends of the accused pillow "are connected by a cylindrical straight portion." ¶21 col. 5:11-13
...the cross-sectional diameter of the body pillow being between 7 and 12 inches... The "cross-sectional diameter of the body pillow, measured at the straight portion, is about 8 inches." ¶21 col. 2:8-10
...the horseshoe shaped top constituting a semi-toroidal member having a diameter of about 25 to 26 inches... The "diameter of the horseshoe-shaped end is about 25-26 inches." ¶21 col. 5:22-24
...and terminating in a foot spaced from the straight portion extending parallel to the straight portion and forming therewith a curved opening. The "horseshoe-shaped end terminates in a foot that extends parallel to the straight portion and forms a curved opening." ¶21 col. 5:28-31

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint states the accused product is designated as both a "J-Shaped" and "C-Shape" pillow (Compl. ¶6). This raises the question of whether the accused product's geometry falls within the scope of a pillow "essentially in the shape of a J," as the claim requires, or if its "C" shape is meaningfully different.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused product's dimensions (e.g., "about 8 inches" cross-sectional diameter, "about 25-26 inches" horseshoe diameter) map directly onto the ranges specified in the patent claims (Compl. ¶21). The dispute may turn on factual evidence establishing the precise measurements of the accused products and whether they meet these specific limitations. A photograph of the accused pillow from an amazon.com storefront is provided as Exhibit C to the complaint (Compl. ¶20).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "essentially in the shape of a J"

Context and Importance

The definition is critical because the Defendant's product is allegedly marketed as a "C-Shape" pillow (Compl. ¶6). Infringement may depend on whether a "C" shape is encompassed by the claim language "essentially in the shape of a J." Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between these shapes could form a primary non-infringement defense.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "essentially" suggests the shape does not need to be a perfect "J" and allows for some variation. The patent’s overall description focuses on a combined shape that supports the head and legs in a particular manner, which a C-shaped pillow might also do.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 distinctly recites a "horseshoe-shaped top" and a "J-shaped bottom," suggesting the patentee viewed these as different shapes. The patent figures, such as Figure 6, depict a bottom portion with a more pronounced hook characteristic of a "J" rather than a symmetrical arc of a "C."

The Term: "substantially cylindrical straight portion"

Context and Importance

This term defines the geometry of the pillow section connecting the two ends. A defendant could argue its product's connecting portion has a non-cylindrical, such as a flattened or oval, cross-section that falls outside the claim scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides its own gloss on this term, stating that while the section is "nearly cylindrical," it is contemplated that "the top of section 14 will be slightly closer to the bottom than the side to side dimension" (’164 Patent, col. 5:13-16). This language explicitly allows for deviation from a perfect cylinder, supporting a broader construction.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "substantially cylindrical" still requires a shape that is more circular than it is oblong or rectangular in cross-section, and that the allowance for slight deviation in the specification does not read on a pillow with a significantly flattened profile.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant Saint Glory actively induced infringement by "manufacturing the body pillows... and delivering them to the Defendant Pharmedoc" with "knowledge that these body pillows will be imported... used, sold and offered for sale" and "with knowledge that these activities infringe" (Compl. ¶24).

Willful Infringement

The basis for willfulness is the allegation that Defendant Saint Glory acted with pre-suit "knowledge of the patent" and "knowledge that these activities infringe" (Compl. ¶24). The request for "increased damages" in the prayer for relief is consistent with a claim for willful infringement (Compl. p. 5).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a bottom which is essentially in the shape of a J" be construed to read on a product that Defendant markets as a "C-Shape" pillow? The outcome will likely depend on how much variation the word "essentially" permits.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of dimensional correspondence: the complaint alleges that the accused product's dimensions align precisely with the specific numerical ranges recited in claim 1. The case may turn on whether discovery and factual evidence validate these allegations of a direct dimensional match or reveal a non-infringing difference.