Lippert Components Inc v. Apex Custom Furniture LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lippert Components, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apex Custom Furniture, LLC (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Egerton, McAfee, Armistead & Davis, P.C.; Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00530, E.D. Tenn., 10/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Tennessee because Defendant is a Tennessee company with its principal place of business in the district, where it allegedly conducts regular business including the design, manufacture, and sale of the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s tri-fold convertible sofas, designed for recreational vehicles, infringe a patent related to the mechanical frame that allows the furniture to convert from a sofa to a bed.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns convertible furniture mechanisms designed to maximize utility and sleeping space within the confined interiors of recreational vehicles and other small dwellings.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a specific history of pre-suit communications, including a notice letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant on March 7, 2025, identifying the patent-in-suit. Defendant allegedly responded on June 24, 2025, representing it would redesign its products, but Plaintiff alleges that Defendant continued to offer for sale an infringing product, prompting a second letter on October 7, 2025, and the subsequent filing of this lawsuit. This history forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-01-30	U.S. Patent No. 9,173,502 Priority Date
2015-11-03	U.S. Patent No. 9,173,502 Issue Date
2025-03-07	Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2025-06-24	Defendant responds, stating it would redesign its product
2025-09-22	Defendant publicly displays accused product at industry event
2025-10-07	Plaintiff sends second letter to Defendant
2025-10-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,173,502 - "Tri-Fold Sofa"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,173,502, "Tri-Fold Sofa", issued November 3, 2015 (the "’502 Patent"). (Compl. ¶13)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for convertible sofas that are compact and easy to maneuver, particularly for use in recreational vehicles where space is "very limited." (’502 Patent, col. 1:29-33)
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a convertible sofa frame that deploys between a sofa and bed orientation. It consists of three primary moving sections: a seat section where a user sits, a mid-section that connects the seat section to a stationary base, and a seat back section. In the sofa orientation, the sections are folded compactly. To convert to a bed, the seat and mid-sections are unfolded forward, and the seat back section pivots down, creating a generally co-planar surface for sleeping. The design utilizes removable back cushions that are repositioned onto the mid-frame to complete the flat bed surface. (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:62-col. 5:12) The complaint includes figures from the patent illustrating the transition from a sofa orientation to a bed orientation. (Compl. ¶15)
• Technical Importance: This mechanical arrangement is designed to optimize space and functionality in compact interiors by ensuring all components are integrated into both the sofa and bed configurations. (Compl. ¶15)

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 17. (Compl. ¶33)
• The essential elements of independent claim 17 are:
  • A seating base with first and second sides.
  • A mid-section pivotably coupled to the first side of the seating base.
  • A seat section pivotably coupled to the mid-section.
  • A seat back section pivotably coupled to the second side of the seating base.
  • The sofa moves between an upright sofa orientation and a horizontal bed orientation.
  • The opposite side of the mid-section is "supported entirely by being suspended" from the seat section when in the sofa orientation.
  • The seat section is supported by the seating base, and "at least substantially all of the mid-section is positioned below the portion of the seating base" when in the sofa orientation.
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which may implicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶22)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Apex Tri-fold Sofa" as the Accused Product, providing a specific example identified as "GGG570-WBS #685039 SOFA 70” Trifold Walnut Shiitake 9/25 MFD". (Compl. ¶¶18, 21)

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is alleged to be a convertible sofa that transitions between a sofa and bed orientation. (Compl. ¶19) The complaint alleges it includes structural components corresponding to the patent's claimed sections: "a seating base, a pivotable mid-section, a pivotable seat section, and a pivotable seat back section." (Compl. ¶19) The complaint provides a representative image of the accused product in both a sofa and a partially-converted state. (Compl. ¶21) These products are allegedly designed for and sold to consumers in the motorhome and recreational vehicle market. (Compl. ¶4)

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least independent claim 17 of the ’502 Patent and states that a detailed infringement analysis is provided in an "Exhibit B" to the complaint. (Compl. ¶33) This exhibit was not provided with the complaint document. The complaint’s narrative alleges that the Accused Product includes the core structural elements of the claim—a seating base, mid-section, seat section, and seat back section—and that it is "designed to and does operate in a manner that falls within the scope" of the asserted patent. (Compl. ¶¶19, 22) Without the referenced claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the specific structural and spatial relationships required by claim 17 when the sofa is in its folded, non-bed orientation. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused product's mechanism meets the limitations that the mid-section is "supported entirely by being suspended from the seat section" and is also positioned "at least substantially... below the portion of the seating base."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide technical details or diagrams of the accused product's internal mechanism. A key factual question will be how the accused product's mid-section is actually supported and positioned relative to the other components. Evidence will be required to determine if its operation matches the specific functional requirements recited in the final two clauses of claim 17.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "supported entirely by being suspended"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 17 and describes the structural relationship between the mid-section and the seat section in the sofa orientation. The interpretation of "entirely by being suspended" will be critical, as it dictates the type of connection required. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused product’s linkage can be characterized this way, or if it relies on other forms of support.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition for this phrase, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any arrangement where the mid-section hangs from the seat section.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as the side elevational view in Fig. 9, depict a specific linkage (extension 38) connecting the mid-frame (34) to the seat frame (32). A party may argue that this disclosed embodiment limits the scope of "suspended" to this type of pivoting link, as opposed to other connection types.

• The Term: "at least substantially all of the mid-section is positioned below the portion of the seating base"

• Context and Importance: This term in claim 17 defines the vertical placement of the mid-section relative to the base frame in the sofa configuration. The meaning of "substantially all" is a question of degree and will be central to determining whether the geometry of the accused product infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that "substantially all" does not require 100% of the component to be below the base, but rather a significant majority, allowing for minor parts of the mechanism to be level with or above the base.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Fig. 9 shows the mid-frame (34) located "properly located beneath the seat frame 32 and extending through the base frame 18." (’502 Patent, col. 4:51-56) A party could argue this specific geometric arrangement, where the mid-section is clearly tucked under and within the base frame's profile, informs a narrower construction of "substantially all."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant making available "instructions or manuals for manufacturing the Accused Products." (Compl. ¶35) Contributory infringement is alleged based on selling a material component that was "especially made or adapted for use" in an infringing manner and is not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶36)
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having received "actual notice" of the ’502 Patent via a letter dated March 7, 2025. (Compl. ¶¶26, 37) It further alleges that despite this notice and a subsequent promise to redesign its products, Defendant continued to offer for sale the Accused Product, thereby "knowingly, willfully, and deliberately" infringing the patent. (Compl. ¶¶28-29, 37)

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

• A core issue will be one of structural and geometric infringement: Does the accused sofa's internal mechanism, particularly in its folded sofa orientation, satisfy the specific spatial and support limitations of claim 17? The case may turn on whether the accused mid-section is "supported entirely by being suspended" from the seat section and whether it is positioned "substantially... below" the seating base, as those terms are construed by the court.
• A second central question will concern willfulness and intent: Given the complaint's detailed timeline of pre-suit notice, correspondence regarding a potential redesign, and subsequent alleged continued sales, a key focus will be on whether Defendant's actions after receiving notice of the ’502 Patent were objectively reckless. The resolution of this issue will directly impact potential damages.