DCT
2:18-cv-00120
Level Sleep LLC v. Dormeo North America LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Level Sleep LLC (California)
- Defendant: Dormeo North America, LLC; Top Shop T.V. LLC (dba Dormeo Octaspring, LLC); Octaspring Operations US, Inc.; and Octaspring US, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Dacus Firm, P.C.; Farella Braun + Martel LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00120, E.D. Tex., 03/27/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically in Plano, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dormeo Octaspring mattresses infringe patents related to multi-zone mattress technology designed to provide spinal alignment and low body pressure.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mattresses with differential support zones intended to improve sleep quality by conforming to the human body's varying weight distribution and shape.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff's practice has been to mark its commercial products with the relevant patent numbers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-06-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,807,698 |
| 2002-06-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,036,172 |
| 2004-10-26 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,807,698 |
| 2006-05-02 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,036,172 |
| 2018-03-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,807,698 - Bed Having Low Body Pressure and Alignment
Issued October 26, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies two primary causes of poor sleep from conventional mattresses: the buildup of pressure on body protrusions (like shoulders and hips), which can restrict blood flow, and poor body alignment, which can result from the lateral bending of the spine. (’698 Patent, col. 1:46-51, col. 2:1-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a mattress constructed with two key components: a uniform "resilient top member" and, beneath it, a "resilient supporting means" with varying properties along the length of the bed. (’698 Patent, Abstract). This combination allows the mattress to provide different levels of support to different parts of the body (e.g., firmer under the waist, softer under the shoulders), thereby maintaining spinal alignment while distributing pressure evenly. (’698 Patent, col. 4:56-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to achieve the comfort and alignment benefits of expensive, zoned air mattresses using more economical materials like foam, thereby broadening the potential market for advanced sleep technology. (’698 Patent, col. 2:42-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A mattress for supporting a reclining body.
- A resilient top member with a top region possessing uniform displacement parameters.
- Resilient supporting means below the top member, extending laterally and longitudinally with differing displacement parameters along the longitudinal direction.
- The resilient supporting means coacting with the top member to establish alignment of the shoulder, waist, and hip parts and low supporting surface pressure.
- A cover that does not interfere with the mattress's displacement parameters. (Compl. ¶17).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,036,172 - Bed Having Low Body Pressure and Alignment
Issued May 2, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ’698 Patent, this patent addresses the same problems of high body pressure and poor spinal alignment in conventional mattresses. (’172 Patent, col. 1:50-col. 2:12).
- The Patented Solution: This invention focuses more specifically on the mattress "core" and how to achieve the zoned support using foam. It describes a core that includes "one or more foam members having structural modification" which allows them to "exhibit different displacement parameters including different ILDs" (Indentation Load Deflection) at different longitudinal positions. (’172 Patent, Abstract). This provides a specific method—modifying the structure of foam itself—to create the desired performance characteristics for supporting a body in alignment. (’172 Patent, col. 6:7-17).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a more detailed technical roadmap for manufacturing zoned support systems out of foam by claiming the concept of structurally modifying foam members to achieve different ILD values.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A mattress for supporting a reclining body.
- A core extending longitudinally and laterally for undergoing differing vertical displacements.
- The core having displacement parameters that vary to match the body’s displacement profile to provide low body pressure.
- The core having a plurality of regions where vertical displacement varies to maintain the body in alignment.
- The core including one or more foam members with "structural modification" at different longitudinal positions that exhibit different displacement parameters, including different ILDs. (Compl. ¶31).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Dormeo Octaspring line of mattresses. (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused mattresses are alleged to be constructed from "hundreds of Octasprings" which are assembled into "seven zones of comfort." (Compl. ¶19). These zones are marketed as being "softer for your head, more supportive for your hips and thighs," which the complaint alleges creates differing support along the mattress's length. (Compl. ¶¶19, 21).
- The "Octasprings" are described as a "cross between a spring coil and memory foam" and are alleged to be foam members with structural modifications, such as reinforcements and air vents. (Compl. ¶¶19, 36). The complaint provides a marketing visual showing a cutaway of the mattress with a user lying on zoned springs below a top comfort layer. (Compl. ¶20). A separate visual from the defendant's website describes how "Octasprings positioned into zones" offer different levels of support to keep the "spine in complete alignment." (Compl. ¶21, p. 7).
- The products are marketed as "the most advanced mattress on the market" and employing "game-changing sleep technology," suggesting they are positioned as premium, high-performance products. (Compl. ¶19, p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’698 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a resilient top member having a top region possessing uniform displacement parameters for providing a uniform supporting surface pressure to the reclining body, | The complaint references a product image showing a top layer, described as a "resilient top member," situated above the Octaspring layer. This layer is alleged to have uniform properties. A separate marketing image shows an "Ultra-deep HydraCOOL™ Gel Memory Foam Comfort Layer" as the top layer. (Compl. ¶20, p. 7). | ¶20 | col. 4:46-50 |
| resilient supporting means below said top member, said resilient supporting means extending in said lateral direction and in said longitudinal direction with differing displacement parameters along the longitudinal direction for imparting differing vertical compressions... for establishing alignment of the shoulder, waist and hip parts... | The layer of "Octasprings" located below the top member. The complaint cites Dormeo’s marketing claims that these are "positioned into zones, offering more support for your hips and thighs, softer for your head and shoulders, keeping your spine in complete alignment." A product visual depicts these zoned springs. (Compl. ¶20). | ¶21 | col. 4:50-63 |
| a cover for covering said resilient top member and said resilient supporting means without interfering with the displacement parameters... | The "Plush cover with Tencel®" that encloses the mattress. The complaint alleges this cover functions without interfering with the internal components, based on marketing descriptions of its properties. (Compl. ¶22). | ¶22 | col. 4:63-68 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "resilient supporting means", which the patent illustrates with contiguous foam blocks and air bladders, can be construed to read on an array of discrete, spring-shaped foam structures like the accused "Octasprings."
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's top layer possesses "uniform displacement parameters", or that the underlying Octaspring zones provide "differing displacement parameters" as technically defined, beyond relying on marketing language?
’172 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a core... for undergoing differing vertical displacements when supporting the reclining body, | The internal assembly of the Dormeo mattress, including the Octasprings, is identified as the infringing "core." This core is alleged to undergo differing vertical displacements based on Dormeo’s marketing of "seven zones of comfort." (Compl. ¶¶33, 34). | ¶¶34-35 | col. 5:58-62 |
| said core having displacement parameters varying to match the displacement profile of the reclining body... to maintain the reclining body in alignment, | The complaint alleges the zoned nature of the Octasprings creates varying displacement parameters designed to match a user's body profile. This is supported by citing Dormeo’s claim that the zones keep the user's "spine in complete alignment." (Compl. ¶35). | ¶35 | col. 6:1-6 |
| said core including one or more foam members having structural modification where the one or more foam members at different longitudinal positions exhibit different displacement parameters including different ILDs... | The "Octasprings" themselves are alleged to be the "foam members having structural modification." The complaint describes them as a "cross between a spring coil and memory foam" with features like "eight reinforcements" and "air vents," which constitute the alleged modification. The differing ILDs are alleged on "information and belief." (Compl. ¶¶36, 19). An image shows these springs arranged in zones. (Compl. ¶34). | ¶36 | col. 6:7-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the term "foam members", as used in a patent focused on modifying blocks of foam, read on the accused "Octasprings," which are discrete articles manufactured from foam but shaped and engineered to function like springs?
- Technical Questions: The allegation of "different ILDs" is made "on information and belief." A critical question for the court will be what technical evidence, such as test data, shows that the different Octasprings in the different zones actually possess different Indentation Load Deflection values, a specific technical parameter required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "resilient supporting means" (’698 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is central to whether the patent covers the accused technology. The infringement theory depends on this term being broad enough to encompass an array of individual foam springs ("Octasprings"), not just the solid foam or air bladder embodiments shown in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses broad, functional language, describing a "means" for providing support with "differing displacement parameters," without limiting its structure. (’698 Patent, col. 36:12-23).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description and figures consistently depict this "means" as contiguous layers of foam or air-inflatable members, which a court could find limits the term's scope to those embodiments or their equivalents. (’698 Patent, Figs. 1-3, 20-31).
The Term: "foam members having structural modification" (’172 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim against the ’172 Patent hinges on this term. The central dispute will likely be whether an "Octaspring"—an article manufactured from foam into a spring-like shape—is a "foam member" that has been structurally modified, or if it is a distinct class of article not contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not narrowly define "structural modification," which could be argued to include shaping foam into a spring to alter its displacement properties. The abstract refers to the invention supporting the body "in alignment," a function the accused product also claims. (’172 Patent, Abstract).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides numerous examples of "structural modification," such as cutting holes or slits into a foam block or creating layers with varying contours. (’172 Patent, Figs. 32-41). A party could argue that the term is limited to such modifications of a pre-existing foam body, not the ab initio creation of a new, spring-shaped article from foam material.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Dormeo provides "instructional and other explanatory materials" that encourage customers to use the mattresses in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶25, 39). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the mattresses are "especially made or adapted" for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶¶26, 40).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Dormeo has had knowledge of the patents, or has been willfully blind, "since at latest, the date this complaint was filed." (Compl. ¶¶24, 38). This frames the willfulness claim based on post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "resilient supporting means" and "foam members having structural modification", which are rooted in patent specifications describing the modification of solid foam layers, be construed to cover the accused "Octasprings," which are discrete, engineered articles made from foam but designed to function as individual springs?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: beyond marketing claims, what objective evidence will demonstrate that the accused mattresses meet the specific technical requirements of the claims, such as having a top layer with "uniform displacement parameters" and zones with verifiably "different ILDs"? The outcome may depend significantly on the results of expert testing conducted during discovery.