DCT

5:17-cv-01230

Jamie S Leach v. Day To Day Imports Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:17-cv-01230, W.D. Okla., 09/09/2019
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges all Defendants have consented to the Court's personal jurisdiction and stipulated that venue is proper.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ full-body pregnancy pillows infringe a patent related to an ergonomic body pillow with a distinct horseshoe-shaped top and J-shaped bottom.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for ergonomic and maternity support pillows, a consumer goods category where specific shapes and functional designs are key product differentiators.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiffs filed a prior patent infringement lawsuit ("Leachco I") against Defendant Pharmedoc in September 2016. The complaint alleges that following the filing of Leachco I, Defendants changed the marketing and import description of the accused product from "J-Shape" to "C-Shape," a fact which may be relevant to questions of knowledge and intent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-10-31 Plaintiff's Snoogle® product introduced (approximate)
2000-10-19 ’164 Patent Priority Date
2002-12-31 ’164 Patent Issue Date
2016-01-01 Defendants begin importing "J-shaped Polyester Pillows" (approximate)
2016-09-01 Plaintiffs file "Leachco I" lawsuit (approximate)
2017-01-31 Defendants change import description from "J-Shape" to "C-Shape" (approximate)
2019-09-09 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 Dec. 31, 2002)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a pillow designed to provide full-body support for a person lying on their side. The specification notes that for pregnant women, it is desirable to keep a space between the legs to "alleviate the heat which would otherwise occur if the legs were kept together," suggesting a need for a pillow that provides both support and temperature control (’164 Patent, col. 4:15-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, elongated pillow with a unique, composite shape. It combines an upper "horseshoe-shaped portion" to support the user's head, a lower "J-shaped portion" to be placed between the legs, and a "straight portion" connecting the two ends (’164 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-18). This unitary design aims to provide comprehensive support for the head, back, and legs simultaneously, as illustrated in Figure 7 of the patent (’164 Patent, Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this specific anatomical design "completely transform[ed] the market for maternity pillows" by offering a novel configuration that conformed to the human body from head to toe (Compl. ¶29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶89).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the core elements of the pillow:
    • 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 products are the "PharMeDoc Full Body Pregnancy Pillow," which are marketed under various descriptions including "C Shaped" and, allegedly, previously as "J-Shaped" (Compl. ¶2, 37, 39). The complaint refers to them collectively as the "Accused Pillow" (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Pillow is a full-body support pillow sold through major online retailers like Amazon.com, Walmart, and Wayfair (Compl. ¶37, 47). The complaint alleges it competes directly with Plaintiff's Snoogle® product (Compl. ¶37). Functionally, the complaint alleges the Accused Pillow has a top end shaped like a horseshoe, a bottom end shaped like a J, and a connecting straight portion, with specific dimensions that fall within the ranges claimed by the ’164 Patent (Compl. ¶43). A screenshot from a YouTube video allegedly shows the product marketed with text stating "Full Body Support with J-Shape Design" (Compl. ¶39).

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 is a body pillow with "a top end that is essentially in the shape of a horseshoe for accommodating the upper end of a person (e.g., their head)." ¶43 col. 5:8-10
...and a bottom which is essentially in the shape of a J for accommodating a lower end of the person... The Accused Pillow has "a bottom end essentially in the shape of a J for accommodating a lower end of the person (e.g., their legs)." The complaint explicitly states that whether the pillow is called "J-Shaped or C Shaped, is no matter, the pillows are substantially the same." A product catalog image allegedly shows Plaintiff's J-shaped product used to advertise Defendant's product (Compl. ¶70). ¶42, 43 col. 5:10-12
...a substantially cylindrical straight portion connecting the horseshoe-shaped top with the J-shaped bottom... The Accused Pillow "has a substantially cylindrical straight portion connecting the horseshoe-shaped top with the essentially J-shaped bottom." ¶43 col. 5:12-14
...the cross-sectional diameter of the body pillow being between 7 and 12 inches... "The cross-sectional diameter of the Accused Pillow is about 9 inches (i.e., within a range of between 7 and 12 inches)." ¶43 col. 5:14-16
...the horseshoe shaped top constituting a semi-toroidal member having a diameter of about 25 to 26 inches... "The essentially horseshoe-shaped top is a semi-toroidal member having about a 26-inch diameter (i.e., within a range of about 25 to 26 inches)." ¶43 col. 5:23-25
...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 top of the Accused Pillow terminates in a foot spaced from the straight portion extending parallel to the straight portion to form a curved opening." A screenshot from the Doctors-Deals storefront on Amazon shows the Accused Pillow alongside the Leachco pillow, highlighting their similar shapes (Compl. ¶65). ¶43 col. 5:15-19

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint anticipates a dispute over the shape of the pillow's bottom portion, arguing that the accused "C-Shaped" pillow is equivalent to the claimed "J-shaped bottom" (Compl. ¶42). This raises the primary claim construction question: does the term "essentially in the shape of a J" read on a product marketed and shaped as a "C"?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint makes specific allegations about the physical dimensions of the Accused Pillow, such as its cross-sectional diameter and the diameter of its horseshoe-shaped top (Compl. ¶43). A key factual question will be whether discovery and expert evidence validate that the accused products, as sold, actually meet these precise dimensional limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

    • Context and Importance: This term is central because Defendants market the Accused Pillow as "C-Shaped" (Compl. ¶37). Plaintiffs' infringement case depends on persuading the court that a "C-shape" falls within the scope of "essentially in the shape of a J."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiffs may argue that the modifier "essentially" allows for some deviation from a perfect geometric "J." They may argue that as long as the bottom portion is a hook-like curve that functions to support and separate the user's legs, it meets the claim's functional requirement, regardless of whether it is labeled a "C" or a "J."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the patent is highly specific. The title, abstract, summary, and claims all consistently and exclusively refer to a "J-shaped" bottom (’164 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 2:6). The patent figures, such as Figure 1, depict a distinct shape with a straight vertical element and a curved hook, which is structurally different from a continuous arc of a "C."

  • The Term: "substantially cylindrical straight portion"

    • Context and Importance: The overall form of these pillows is curvilinear. The interpretation of "straight portion" will determine how much, if any, curvature is permitted in the pillow's long mid-section.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" suggests the term does not require perfect geometric straightness. Plaintiffs may argue that the elongated section connecting the two ends serves the function of a "straight portion" as described in the patent, even if it has a slight, gradual curve along its length (’164 Patent, col. 5:12-14).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may point to the patent's drawings, where the mid-section 14 is depicted as visually straight (’164 Patent, Fig. 1, 6). They could argue that "straight portion" has a plain and ordinary meaning that excludes a continuously curving member, and that "substantially" only accounts for minor manufacturing imperfections, not a designed curve.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants induced infringement (Compl. Count II). It asserts they had knowledge of the ’164 Patent at least as of the filing of the "Leachco I" lawsuit in September 2016 (Compl. ¶90, 98). The complaint alleges specific intent to induce by pointing to the "decision made by one or more of the Individual Defendants to change the name of the Accused Pillow product from 'J-Shaped' to 'C-Shaped'" after the patent was asserted against them, framing this as a deliberate act to obscure infringement (Compl. ¶99).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges constructive knowledge from patent marking on Plaintiff's products and actual knowledge from the filing of the Leachco I lawsuit (Compl. ¶90). It claims Defendants "elected to pursue the actions... in wanton disregard of the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights" after being put on notice (Compl. ¶90).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "essentially in the shape of a J," which is used with high specificity throughout the patent, be construed to cover a product marketed and sold as a "C-Shaped" pillow?
  • A second central issue will relate to intent and willfulness: will the defendants' alleged decision to re-brand the accused product from "J-Shaped" to "C-Shaped" immediately following the first lawsuit be interpreted as evidence of willful infringement and a deliberate attempt to avoid liability, or as a good-faith effort to design around the patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual compliance: beyond the shape, does the accused product, as manufactured and sold, meet the specific numerical limitations for dimensions such as the "cross-sectional diameter" and the "diameter of about 25 to 26 inches" for the horseshoe top, as recited in the asserted claims?