DCT
3:25-cv-01469
Nugget Comfort LLC v. Galaxy Home LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nugget Comfort LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Galaxy Home, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Holland & Knight LLP; Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01469, M.D. Tenn., 12/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Tennessee because Defendant has its principal place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modular play furniture product infringes two design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a configurable ottoman and a chair arrangement.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the market for children's modular play furniture, a product category that combines aspects of home furnishings and creative, open-ended toys.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement via letters on October 21, 2025, and November 24, 2025, prior to filing suit. These allegations may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024-04-11 | Priority Date for ’738 and ’547 Patents |
| 2024-05-01 | Plaintiff's "Chunk®" Product Introduced |
| 2024-10-29 | ’738 Patent Issued |
| 2024-11-26 | Plaintiff Alleges Adding ’738 Patent to Virtual Marking Webpage |
| 2024-12-31 | ’547 Patent Issued |
| 2025-10-01 | Plaintiff Alleges Adding ’547 Patent to Virtual Marking Webpage |
| 2025-10-21 | Plaintiff Sent First Pre-Suit Notice Letter to Defendant |
| 2025-11-24 | Plaintiff Sent Second Pre-Suit Notice Letter to Defendant |
| 2025-12-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,048,738 - "Set of modular cushions," Issued October 29, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint frames the associated commercial product as an innovative entry in the "part-furniture and part-toy" market, designed to "foster creativity and open-ended play" (Compl. ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a set of modular cushions. The design consists of several distinct, cylindrically shaped cushions that can be assembled to form an ottoman or disassembled for play (Compl. ¶14-15). The claimed visual appearance is defined by the shapes and proportions of the components, which include a large, hollow outer ring, a flat top piece, and two smaller inner "puck" cushions that stack inside the ring (’738 Patent, FIG. 14).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this design, embodied in the "Chunk®" ottoman, is an award-winning product in the play furniture industry (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent’s figures. The claim of the ’738 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a set of modular cushions, as shown and described" (’738 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the design are:
- A large, hollow cylindrical base cushion.
- A flat, solid cylindrical top cushion sized to cover the base.
- One or more smaller, solid cylindrical cushions sized to stack within the hollow base.
- The overall visual impression of the components when assembled into a single ottoman unit.
U.S. Patent No. D1,055,547 - "Chair," Issued December 31, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent protects the ornamental appearance of a specific configuration of modular furniture elements. The design's utility is derived from the reconfigurable nature of the underlying product, which allows elements to be arranged in a "myriad of ways to accommodate play and relaxation" (Compl. ¶15).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a chair created from modular components. The first embodiment depicts a cylindrical base cushion topped with a separate, curved cushion element that rests on the base to form a backrest, creating a distinct visual appearance for a low-profile chair (’547 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: This design patent protects the aesthetic appearance of one of the key configurations of the modular set, highlighting the product's versatility (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a chair, as shown and described" (’547 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of the design are:
- A cylindrical base element.
- A separate, curved or crescent-shaped backrest element.
- The specific arrangement and resulting overall visual appearance of the backrest element positioned on top of the base element.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "Tumblehouse Play Circle," which is also allegedly sold by distributors under the name "Play Circle" (Compl. ¶30-31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is described as a "four piece set featuring a tunnel ring, two round stackers and a large circle top that roll, stack and reconfigure into tunnels, chairs, stepping stones and toss rings" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that Defendant developed this product to compete directly with Plaintiff's play furniture (Compl. ¶29). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows the four circular components of the Tumblehouse Play Circle displayed together (Compl. p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The complaint alleges infringement by presenting side-by-side visual comparisons between the patented designs and the accused product.
D1,048,738 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the overall visual appearance of the accused "Tumblehouse Play Circle" is substantially the same as the patented design for a set of modular cushions (Compl. ¶46). The complaint provides a visual chart comparing figures from the ’738 Patent to photographs of the accused product (Compl. p. 15).
| Claimed Design Feature (from ’738 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Accused Product Photos) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| The overall perspective view of the assembled ottoman (FIG. 1). | A photograph of the assembled "Tumblehouse Play Circle" from a similar perspective, showing a nearly identical overall form. | p. 15 |
| The top-down view showing concentric rings of the base and interior cushions (FIG. 3). | A top-down photograph of the accused product showing a similar arrangement of concentric cushion elements. | p. 15 |
| The perspective view of the hollow, ring-shaped base cushion shown alone (FIG. 5). | A photograph of the accused product's ring-shaped component, appearing to have the same shape and proportions. | p. 15 |
D1,055,547 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of the ’547 Patent by showing customers how to configure the "Tumblehouse Play Circle" into a chair that is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶33, ¶51). The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the patented chair design and a photograph from Defendant's website showing the accused product in a chair configuration (Compl. p. 13).
| Claimed Design Feature (from ’547 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Accused Product Photos) | Complaint Citation |
|---|---|---|
| The perspective view of the chair configuration, showing a curved backrest on a cylindrical base (FIG. 1). | A photograph from Defendant's website captioned "THE CHAIR," showing the accused product's components arranged in a visually similar configuration. | p. 13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central issue for both patents is the scope of the claimed ornamental design. The question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The analysis will focus on the overall visual impression created by the products, rather than minor differences.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question for the '547 patent will be whether Defendant's website and marketing materials, which show the accused product configured as a chair, are sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant intended for its customers to assemble the product in an infringing manner, thereby supporting the claim for induced infringement.
V. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant indirectly infringes the ’547 Patent by inducement (Compl. ¶51). The basis for this allegation is that Defendant’s website and marketing materials allegedly solicit and instruct customers to configure the "Tumblehouse Play Circle" into a chair design that infringes the patent (Compl. ¶33, ¶52).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶43). The complaint alleges two sources of knowledge: constructive notice via Plaintiff’s virtual patent marking (Compl. ¶23-27) and actual notice via pre-suit cease-and-desist letters sent on October 21 and November 24, 2025 (Compl. ¶34, ¶39). The complaint alleges that Defendant continued its infringing activities despite this notice (Compl. ¶38-39).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer in the market for children's furniture, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "Tumblehouse Play Circle" substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’738 and ’547 Patents, such that the observer would be deceived?
- A secondary issue will be one of inducement: Does the evidence, particularly photographs on Defendant's website showing the accused product arranged as "THE CHAIR," demonstrate a specific intent by Defendant to encourage customers to assemble the product in a configuration that directly infringes the ’547 Patent?
- A final question will relate to culpability and remedy: If infringement is found, did Defendant's conduct, particularly after receiving pre-suit notice letters from Plaintiff, rise to the level of willfulness, which could expose Defendant to enhanced damages and attorney's fees, or an award of its total profits from the infringing product?