DCT
2:18-cv-04006
Deltess Corp v. Rio Brands Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Deltess Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: RIO Brands, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker & Hostetler LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-04006, E.D. Pa., 09/17/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and sells the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Read Through Lounger" chair infringes a patent related to recreational lounge chairs featuring a closeable face opening for prone-position use.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for outdoor recreational furniture, specifically a design feature intended to improve user comfort and enable activities like reading while lying face-down.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has complied with patent marking requirements by placing the word "Patented" and a publicly accessible internet address on its commercial embodiments. It also alleges Defendant has had knowledge of the patent since at least November 30, 2016, forming the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-06-27 | U.S. Patent No. 6,854,807 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2005-02-15 | U.S. Patent No. 6,854,807 Issued |
| 2005-08-01 | Plaintiff began using OSTRICH trademark (approximate) |
| 2016-11-30 | Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of the '807 Patent |
| 2018-09-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,854,807 - "Lounge Chair with Closeable Face Opening"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,854,807, "Lounge Chair with Closeable Face Opening", issued February 15, 2005.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional lounge chairs are uncomfortable for users lying in a prone (face-down) position, as it requires turning one's head to the side, potentially causing a "stiff neck" and uneven sun exposure. This position also makes it "virtually impossible to read a book." (’807 Patent, col. 1:8-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lounge chair that incorporates a "through opening" in the back section, allowing a user to place their face through it while lying prone. The patent also discloses "lateral cut-out openings" in the back section to permit the user's arms to extend underneath the chair to hold reading material. (’807 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:2; Fig. 1). To restore a solid surface for sitting or supine (face-up) reclining, the face opening is covered by a combination of pivoting cushioned pads and a flap. (’807 Patent, col. 2:51-65).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to solve the ergonomic and functional limitations of standard lounge chairs for users wishing to relax or read comfortably in a prone position. (’807 Patent, col. 1:21-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 10, which are all based on independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A seat section, a back section, and a means for connecting them to allow pivoting between sitting and reclining positions.
- An "opening means" in the back section for the user's face while lying prone.
- A "closure means" to cover the opening when the user is sitting or lying on their back.
- A "lateral cutout means" to allow the user's arms to be inserted through the back of the chair while in a reclining position.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant RIO's "Read Through Lounger" chairs, identified as Item Nos. SC570-46 and SC-570-72 (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is marketed as a lounge chair that can "Lay flat with face opening for easy reading" (Compl., Ex. B, p. 19). It is a multi-position reclining chair sold through various channels, including Defendant's website and major retailers like Amazon (Compl. ¶17-18).
- The complaint alleges that a "large flip over head pillow" on the accused product serves as the closure for the face opening (Compl., Ex. D, p. 28). This pillow is shown in a photo from the product website, which describes it as a feature of the chair. (Compl., Ex. B, p. 19; Ex. D, p. 29).
- The complaint alleges that Defendant's sales are in "direct competition" with Plaintiff's own OSTRICH brand chairs (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’807 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A lounge chair comprising a seat section, a back section, and means connecting the seat and back sections to allow pivoting... between user sitting and user reclining chair positions | The accused chair has a seat and back section connected by a frame that allows it to adjust to multiple positions, including fully reclined. A photo from the complaint's exhibit shows the pivoting mechanism. (Compl., Ex. D, p. 27). | ¶9, Ex. D | col. 1:52-56 |
| said back section comprising opening means for the placement of the face of a user lying on his or her stomach while the chair is in a reclining position | The accused chair's backrest contains a hole described as a "face opening for easy reading." A photo of the purchased chair provided in the complaint shows this opening. (Compl., Ex. D, p. 28). | ¶9, Ex. D | col. 1:59-62 |
| closure means to cover the opening means when the chair is in a sitting position or when the user is lying on the chair on his or her back... | The accused chair features a "large flip over head pillow" which, the complaint alleges, functions as the closure means. A product photo shows this pillow flipped down over the face opening. (Compl., Ex. D, p. 29). | ¶9, Ex. D | col. 1:62-65 |
| and lateral cutout means to allow insertion of the arms of the user while the chair is in the reclining position. | The complaint identifies the spaces on either side of the backrest fabric as the "lateral cutout means." An annotated photo from Defendant's website highlights these areas as allowing arm insertion. (Compl., Ex. D, p. 31). | ¶9, Ex. D | col. 1:65-col. 2:2 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): A primary dispute may arise over whether "closure means" and "lateral cutout means" are means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). If they are, their scope is limited to the structures disclosed in the patent specification and their equivalents. The infringement analysis would then turn on whether the accused chair's single "flip over head pillow" is structurally equivalent to the patent's disclosed two-part system of a flap and pivoting pads.
- Technical Questions: The court will need to determine if the incidental space between the fabric and frame on the accused chair constitutes a "lateral cutout means" as claimed. The patent specification illustrates distinct, engineered "cut-out openings 32 and 34" in an expanded back section (’807 Patent, Fig. 1), raising the question of whether there is a technical and structural mismatch between the claimed element and the accused feature.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "closure means"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine infringement. If interpreted as a means-plus-function element, the inquiry narrows to a comparison between the accused product's single "flip over head pillow" and the specific structures disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 broadly recites a "closure means to cover the opening means," without detailing its structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific two-part structure for closing the opening: a "flap 28" attached to the "undersurface" of the back section, and separate "cushioned pads 22, 24, and 26" attached to the "top surface" that pivot inward to cover the opening (’807 Patent, col. 2:51-65; Fig. 3). An argument could be made that this detailed disclosure limits the scope of the "closure means" to this structure and its equivalents.
The Term: "lateral cutout means"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused product does not appear to have dedicated, engineered cutouts. The infringement allegation relies on interpreting the incidental gaps at the side of the fabric backrest as meeting this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language broadly calls for a "means to allow insertion of the arms of the user." The open space on the accused chair may functionally permit this.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 1 explicitly show "cut-out openings 32 and 34" as distinct apertures within an "expanded upper area 36" of the back section (’807 Patent, col. 3:1-5; Fig. 1). This suggests the "means" is a specifically-designed opening, not merely the space created by attaching fabric to a frame.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (induced or contributory). Its allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendant's acts of making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the accused product (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having knowledge of the ’807 Patent "since at least about November 30, 2016" and allegedly acting without a reasonable basis for believing it was not infringing (Compl. ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: will the terms "closure means" and "lateral cutout means" be governed by means-plus-function principles under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)? The answer will dictate whether the infringement analysis is a broad functional comparison or a narrow structural one focused on equivalence to the specific flap-and-pad and engineered-opening structures disclosed in the patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: assuming the claims are not limited under §112(f), does the accused chair's "flip over head pillow" and the incidental side gaps in its construction meet the textual limitations of "closure means" and "lateral cutout means," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed structures and the accused design?