DCT
2:17-cv-00235
Team Worldwide Corp v. Wal Mart Stores Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Team Worldwide Corporation (Taiwan)
- Defendant: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, Wal-Mart.com USA LLC, and Sam's West, Inc. d/b/a Sam's Club (Delaware/Arkansas/California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00235, E.D. Tex., 03/29/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Walmart transacts business in the district, operates numerous retail stores and distribution centers within the district, and committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s retail sale of certain Aerobed, Coleman, and Intex brand air beds with integrated electric pumps infringes three U.S. patents related to built-in air pump technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns inflatable products, such as air mattresses, that incorporate a built-in electric pump, which eliminates the need for consumers to use a separate, external device for inflation and deflation.
- Key Procedural History: The provided documents include Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificates issued by the USPTO in 2024, subsequent to the filing of this complaint. These certificates state that all claims asserted in this litigation (claims 1, 7, 11-14 of the '018 Patent; claims 1, 7, 11, 13, and 14 of the '950 Patent; and claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16 of the '394 Patent) have been cancelled. This development fundamentally impacts the viability of the infringement claims as originally pleaded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-06-22 | Priority Date for U.S. 7,246,394 & U.S. 7,346,950 |
| 2003-06-11 | Priority Date for U.S. 9,211,018 |
| 2007-07-24 | Issue Date for U.S. 7,246,394 |
| 2008-03-25 | Issue Date for U.S. 7,346,950 |
| 2015-12-15 | Issue Date for U.S. 9,211,018 |
| 2017-03-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,211,018 - "Inflatable Airbed Provided with Electric Pump Having Pump Body Recessed into the Inflatable Airbed"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9211018, "Inflatable Airbed Provided with Electric Pump Having Pump Body Recessed into the Inflatable Airbed," issued December 15, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience of conventional air mattresses that require a separate, externally provided electric air pump, which users must carry in addition to the mattress itself, particularly for outdoor use (’018 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an inflatable product, such as an airbed, with an integrated electric pump. The body of the pump is "wholly or partially recessed into the inflatable body and permanently held" by it, which eliminates the need for a separate pump and simplifies operation (’018 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:35-45).
- Technical Importance: This integrated design enhances user convenience and portability by creating a self-contained, all-in-one inflatable product (’018 Patent, col. 1:24-27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (Compl. ¶28).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An inflatable body with an exterior wall.
- An electric pump with a pump body and an air outlet.
- The pump body is "built into the exterior wall and wholly or partially recessed into the inflatable body."
- At least a portion of the pump body is "exposed by the exterior wall."
- The pump body is "permanently held by the inflatable body."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,346,950 - "Inflatable Product Provided with Electric Air Pump"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7346950, "Inflatable Product Provided with Electric Air Pump," issued March 25, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '018 Patent, this patent addresses the inconvenience for users of having to carry a separate electric air pump for an inflatable product like an air mattress (’950 Patent, col. 1:15-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an inflatable product with a built-in "pack" that houses a fan and motor. This pack is "built in the chamber wall and extends into an interior of the first chamber," creating a self-contained unit with an air intake, an outlet, and a valve to control airflow for inflation (’950 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:4-23).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides an integrated and convenient inflation mechanism, making the inflatable product easier to operate and transport (’950 Patent, col. 1:23-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 7, 11, 13, and 14 (Compl. ¶41).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A first chamber with a chamber wall.
- A "pack" with an interior region, an air intake, and a first air outlet, where the pack is "built in the chamber wall" and "extends into an interior" of the chamber.
- A "first valve" for opening and closing the first air outlet, connected to the pack.
- A fan and motor disposed in the pack's interior region.
- An operation wherein air is pumped from outside, through the pack's intake, through the valve and outlet, and into the chamber.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,246,394 - "Inflatable Product with Built-In Housing and Switching Pipe"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7246394, "Inflatable Product with Built-In Housing and Switching Pipe," issued July 24, 2007.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an inflatable product with a built-in pump assembly featuring a movable "air conduit" or "switching pipe." This pipe can be moved between a first position to direct airflow for inflation and a second position to redirect airflow for deflation, allowing the pump to perform both functions without being removed from its housing (’394 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:31-41).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claims 2-3 and 7-12 are asserted (Compl. ¶54).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Walmart's air beds that contain an integrated pump and a mechanism to switch between inflation and deflation of infringing the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 55).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "air beds that feature an internally housed pump" sold by Walmart under the Aerobed, Coleman, and Intex brand names (Compl. ¶19). The complaint identifies specific pump models, including Aerobed R120A and R3111, Coleman HB-511N1B, and Intex AP619A (Compl. ¶19).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are air beds with built-in electric inflation and deflation devices, which obviates the need for a separate, external pump (Compl. ¶15). The products are alleged to be imported, offered for sale, and sold by Walmart throughout the United States and within the judicial district (Compl. ¶¶18, 20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'018 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an inflatable body comprising an exterior wall; and an electric pump for pumping the inflatable body, the electric pump comprising a pump body and an air outlet | The accused products are inflatable air beds with an exterior wall and contain an electric pump with a pump body and air outlet. | ¶29 | col. 1:36-39 |
| wherein the pump body is built into the exterior wall and wholly or partially recessed into the inflatable body | The pump body of the accused products is built into the air bed's exterior wall and is recessed into the inflatable body. | ¶29 | col. 1:39-41 |
| leaving at least a portion of the pump body exposed by the exterior wall | A portion of the pump body in the accused products remains exposed on the exterior of the air bed. | ¶29 | col. 1:42-43 |
| and wherein the pump body is permanently held by the inflatable body | The pump body in the accused products is permanently held by the inflatable body of the air bed. | ¶29 | col. 1:44-45 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "permanently held." The analysis will question whether this term requires a bond that is impossible to sever or simply one that is not intended to be detached during the product's normal operational life.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are a direct recitation of the claim language. A key question is whether the accused products' pumps are in fact "built into the exterior wall" in the manner contemplated by the patent, or if they are separate modules inserted into a pre-formed cavity, which may raise factual questions of infringement.
'950 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first chamber comprising a chamber wall; | The accused air beds are a first chamber with a chamber wall. | ¶42 | col. 5:2-3 |
| a pack having an interior region... wherein the pack is built in the chamber wall and extends into an interior of the first chamber; | The accused products contain a pump assembly (pack) with an interior region, which is built into the chamber wall and extends into the interior. | ¶42 | col. 5:4-11 |
| a first valve for opening and closing the first air outlet, wherein the first valve is connected to the pack; and | The pump assembly in the accused products includes a first valve connected to the pack for controlling the first air outlet. | ¶42 | col.5:12-14 |
| a fan and motor disposed in the interior region of the pack... | The accused pump assemblies contain a fan and motor within their interior region. | ¶42 | col. 5:15-16 |
| wherein, on activation... air is pumped from outside... through the air intake... through the first valve and first air outlet into the first chamber. | Upon activation, the accused products pump air from outside, through the pump's intake, valve, and outlet, into the air bed chamber. | ¶42 | col. 5:17-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The definition of "pack" will be critical. The analysis will question whether the term should be limited to the specific multi-part embodiments shown in the patent (e.g., ’950 Patent, FIG. 4C, item 430) or if it can be read more broadly to cover any integrated pump housing.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products contain a distinct "first valve... connected to the pack"? The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused airflow control mechanisms map onto this specific claimed structure or operate differently.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the '018 Patent
- The Term: "permanently held"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the required level of integration between the pump and the airbed. Its construction will determine whether a pump that is merely integrated for convenience but potentially removable for service falls within the scope of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's background emphasizes solving the "inconvenience" of a separate pump, suggesting "permanently" could mean integrated for the product's useful life, not necessarily irremovable (’018 Patent, col. 1:24-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states the pump body is "permanently held by the inflatable body," and the detailed embodiments of related patents in the family show pumps "built into the mattress pad," which may imply a more physically inseparable construction that a user cannot disassemble (’950 Patent, col. 4:41-43).
Term from the '950 Patent
- The Term: "pack"
- Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused products' integrated pump assemblies constitute a "pack." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent illustrates a specific structure for the "pack" that may be narrower than a generic pump housing.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the invention as including "a pack, and a fan and motor received in the pack," which could support construing "pack" as a general term for the pump's housing (’950 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description shows a specific embodiment, "pack 430," having a "pack wall 430a exposed to the outside of the chamber" and a distinct "interior region 430b" (’950 Patent, col. 5:44-46; FIG. 4C). This could support a narrower construction limited to structures with these specific features.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 41, 54). It does not plead specific facts, such as identifying instructional materials, to support claims for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents. It bases this allegation on two grounds: first, that Walmart had constructive notice via TWW's marked products that Walmart allegedly imported and sold pre-suit (e.g., Compl. ¶33); and second, that Walmart has had actual notice of the patents and their infringement "since at least the filing of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34). This primarily alleges post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive threshold issue is the viability of the lawsuit. The provided IPR certificates indicate that all asserted claims across all three patents-in-suit were cancelled in 2024. A primary question for the court will be whether any valid basis for the infringement action remains, given that the legal underpinnings of the complaint appear to have been invalidated post-filing.
- Assuming the claims were valid, a core issue would be one of definitional scope: can the term "permanently held" (’018 Patent) be construed to read on pump units that are integrated but potentially removable for service, and can the term "pack" (’950 Patent) be construed broadly enough to cover the specific design of the accused pump housings?
- Finally, a key evidentiary question would be one of technical proof: the complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and lack specific factual support or visual evidence comparing the accused products to the claims. The case would turn on whether the plaintiff could produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products' components and operations literally map onto the specific structural and functional limitations required by the patent claims.