DCT
3:17-cv-03518
Sleep Number Corp v. Sizewise Rentals LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sleep Number Corporation (Minnesota)
- Defendant: Sizewise Rentals, L.L.C. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; Fox Rothschild LLP; Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:17-cv-03518, N.D. Tex., 12/29/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a manufacturing and/or distribution facility located in Arlington, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s medical air bed systems and their associated air controllers infringe three patents related to valve enclosure assemblies and methods for improved pressure adjustment in air mattresses.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for efficiently and accurately controlling the firmness of air beds, a critical feature in both the consumer specialty sleep industry and the medical mattress market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a prior U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172, where an Administrative Law Judge found that Sizewise infringed claims 12 and 16. The ITC ultimately found a violation of Section 337, but a subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit was dismissed as moot after the patent expired. This history is cited as the basis for pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement allegations regarding the ’172 patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-07-28 | U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 Priority Date |
| 1999-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 Issue Date |
| 2008-04-04 | U.S. Patent Nos. 8,769,747 & 9,737,154 Priority Date |
| 2014-07-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747 Issue Date |
| 2015-10-16 | ITC Complaint filed against Sizewise re: ’172 patent |
| 2015-11-20 | ITC institutes investigation against Sizewise |
| 2016-08-08 | ITC evidentiary hearing begins |
| 2017-05-17 | ITC reverses ALJ's Initial Determination |
| 2017-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154 Issue Date |
| 2017-12-26 | Federal Circuit dismisses ITC appeal as moot |
| 2017-12-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,904,172 - "Valve Enclosure Assembly," Issued May 18, 1999
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art air mattress valve assemblies, which required large, powerful solenoids to work against the bladder's internal air pressure. This led to overheating, and the need to periodically pause inflation to check pressure was inefficient and slow. These assemblies were also prone to air leaks. (’172 Patent, col. 2:4-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an improved valve enclosure where the air pressure from the mattress bladder helps to hold the valve closed, reducing the force required from the solenoid and minimizing heat generation. This design also facilitates continuous pressure monitoring through a dedicated port, eliminating the need to interrupt the inflation or deflation cycle to obtain a pressure reading. (’172 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-55).
- Technical Importance: This design improved the efficiency, reliability, and assembly process for adjustable air beds, contributing to their transformation from niche items into mainstream luxury and medical products. (Compl. ¶11, 16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 12 and 16 (Compl. ¶33).
- Independent claim 12 recites, in part, an improved valve enclosure assembly comprising:
- an enclosure defining a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber and having at least one air inlet;
- at least one valve operably coupled to the enclosure and in selective fluid communication with the air chamber; and
- pressure monitor means operably coupled to the processor and in fluid communication with the at least one valve for monitoring the pressure in the at least one bladder.
- Independent claim 16 recites, in part, an improved valve enclosure assembly comprising:
- an enclosure defining a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber, formed of an enclosure portion and a rear cover portion with a flexible seal compressively interposed between them;
- at least one valve operably coupled to the enclosure; and
- pressure monitor means for monitoring pressure in the at least one bladder.
U.S. Patent No. 9,737,154 - "System and Method for Improved Pressure Adjustment," Issued August 22, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Air bed systems that use a single air hose for both pressure adjustments and pressure sensing are inefficient. To get an accurate reading of the bladder pressure, the pump must be turned off to allow pressure to equalize. This start-and-stop process requires numerous iterations and significantly lengthens the time a user must wait to reach a desired firmness. (’154 Patent, col. 1:40–col. 2:11).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method that allows for a more rapid pressure adjustment. Instead of stopping the pump, the system measures the pressure inside the pump's manifold while it is operating and uses a "pressure adjustment factor" to calculate a "pressure target" that correlates to the desired bladder pressure. After the adjustment, the system measures the actual static pressure and compares it to the setpoint to calculate an "adjustment factor error," which is then used to modify the adjustment factor, making future adjustments faster and more accurate for that specific user and system. (’154 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-50).
- Technical Importance: This method allows the system to achieve a target pressure more quickly and to "learn" the specific physical properties of the system over time, improving the user experience. (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent claim 1 recites a method for adjusting pressure, including the steps of:
- receiving a selection for a desired pressure setpoint for the air chamber;
- calculating a pressure target for the pump housing based upon the desired pressure setpoint and a pressure adjustment factor;
- adjusting pressure within the air chamber until a pressure sensed within the pump housing is substantially equal to the pressure target;
- determining an actual chamber pressure within the air chamber;
- comparing the actual chamber pressure to the desired pressure setpoint to determine an adjustment factor error; and
- modifying the pressure adjustment factor based upon the adjustment factor error.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,769,747 - "System and Method for Improved Pressure Adjustment," Issued July 8, 2014
Technology Synopsis
Belonging to the same patent family as the ’154 patent, this patent addresses the inefficiency of single-hose air bed systems that must stop the pump to measure pressure. The disclosed solution is a method that uses a sensor in the pump manifold to approximate the true bladder pressure during inflation or deflation by applying adjustment factors, thereby reducing adjustment time. (’747 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-50).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the pressure adjustment functions of Defendant's air controllers, including the Platinum 5000 and Platinum 6000 models, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶33, 56).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "air mattress bed systems that include assembly components such as an air bladder(s) and an air controller, including but not limited to the Platinum 5000 and Platinum 6000 and other versions of those air controllers" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶33).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are identified as medical air bed systems and components that Defendant distributes and leases in the United States (Compl. ¶4). The core accused functionality resides in the air controllers (e.g., Platinum 5000 and 6000), which are responsible for executing pressure adjustments in the air bladders of the mattresses (Compl. ¶33, 44, 56). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the Accused Products.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner, without mapping specific features of the Accused Products to the elements of the asserted claims. The following tables summarize the infringement theory as can be inferred from the general allegations.
’172 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an enclosure defining a substantially fluidly sealed air chamber and having at least one air inlet to the air chamber... | The Accused Products' air controllers (e.g., Platinum 5000, 6000) are alleged to contain an enclosure with a sealed internal air chamber. | ¶33 | col. 4:18-22 |
| at least one valve operably coupled to the enclosure being in selective fluid communication with the air chamber... | The air controllers are alleged to include at least one valve to control airflow to and from an air bladder. | ¶33 | col. 8:41-48 |
| pressure monitor means being operably coupled to the processor and being in fluid communication with the at least one bladder... | The air controllers are alleged to incorporate a pressure monitor for sensing the pressure within the connected air bladder. | ¶33 | col. 8:35-40 |
’154 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a selection for a desired pressure setpoint for the air chamber | The Accused Products' controllers are alleged to receive user commands to set a desired firmness level. | ¶44, 46 | col. 15:46-48 |
| calculating a pressure target for the pump housing...based upon the desired pressure setpoint...and a pressure adjustment factor | The controllers are alleged to calculate an internal target pressure for the pump's manifold based on the user's selection and a stored adjustment factor. | ¶44, 46 | col. 15:50-58 |
| adjusting pressure...until a pressure sensed within the pump housing is substantially equal to the pressure target | The controllers are alleged to operate the pump system to inflate or deflate the air bladder until the pressure measured in the manifold reaches the calculated target. | ¶44, 46 | col. 15:59-62 |
| determining an actual chamber pressure within the air chamber | After the adjustment cycle, the controllers are alleged to determine the final, static pressure within the air bladder. | ¶44, 46 | col. 15:63-64 |
| comparing the actual chamber pressure to the desired pressure setpoint to determine an adjustment factor error | The controllers are alleged to compare the final pressure with the user's setpoint to quantify any difference or error. | ¶44, 46 | col. 15:65-67 |
| modifying the pressure adjustment factor based upon the adjustment factor error | The controllers are alleged to update the internal adjustment factor based on the calculated error to improve the accuracy of subsequent adjustments. | ¶44, 46 | col. 16:1-3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary technical question for the ’154 and ’747 patents is evidentiary. The complaint does not provide evidence (e.g., from reverse engineering or product testing) that the Accused Products actually perform the specific algorithmic steps recited in the method claims. Discovery, likely including source code review, would be required to determine if the Sizewise controllers use a "pressure adjustment factor" that is "modified" based on an "adjustment factor error," as claimed, or if they employ a different, non-infringing pressure control logic.
- Scope Questions: For the ’172 patent, the scope of the means-plus-function term "pressure monitor means" (claim 12) may be disputed. The analysis will focus on the structure disclosed in the specification for performing the function of "continuously monitoring" pressure and whether the accused devices contain that structure or its legal equivalent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "pressure monitor means" (’172 Patent, Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification that perform the stated function ("continuously monitoring the pressure"), and their equivalents. The construction of this term will be critical to determining infringement of claim 12.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple corresponding structures, including a "pressure monitoring port 146" on the rear cover and an alternative "pressure monitor tab 240" on the valve body itself, which could support an interpretation that is not limited to a single physical layout (’172 Patent, col. 4:31-37; col. 5:21-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the structure is limited to the specific embodiments depicted, for instance, the port (146) fluidly coupled via a tube to a pressure sensor mounted on the main processor board, and that other monitoring configurations fall outside the scope of the claim (’172 Patent, col. 8:5-15).
Term: "pressure adjustment factor" (’154 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the patented method. The infringement analysis for the ’154 and ’747 patents will likely turn on its definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification describes a very specific implementation, raising the question of whether the claim covers only that implementation or any algorithmic correction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites "a pressure adjustment factor," which a plaintiff might argue should be given its plain meaning, covering any value or set of values used to algorithmically correlate sensed manifold pressure with actual bladder pressure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes two distinct types of factors: an additive "inflate offset factor" and a multiplicative "deflate factor" (’154 Patent, col. 12:49–67). A defendant may argue that the term "pressure adjustment factor" is implicitly limited to this two-mode system and does not read on systems using a different error-correction logic, such as a standard PID (proportional-integral-derivative) controller.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The allegations are based on Sizewise providing "instructional materials, such as user guides, owner manuals, and similar online resources," which allegedly instruct customers and end users on how to operate the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶37, 48, 60).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. For the ’172 patent, the allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from the ITC investigation initiated on October 16, 2015, in which Sizewise was a respondent and an ALJ found infringement (Compl. ¶32, 40). For the ’154 and ’747 patents, the allegation is based on knowledge acquired "no later than the time of service of this Complaint," supporting a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶43, 52, 55, 64).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Proof of Operation: For the ’154 and ’747 patents, a central issue will be one of technical evidence. Can Sleep Number demonstrate through discovery that the Sizewise controllers’ software and hardware actually implement the specific, multi-step algorithmic method of the claims—notably, calculating a "pressure target" using a modifiable "pressure adjustment factor"—or do the accused systems use a distinct, non-infringing pressure control methodology?
- Claim Scope and Algorithm: The dispute over the ’154 and ’747 patents will likely involve a key question of claim construction: should the term "pressure adjustment factor" be interpreted broadly to cover any error-correction value, or narrowly to require the specific two-mode system (additive for inflation, multiplicative for deflation) detailed in the patent's preferred embodiments?
- Willfulness and Pre-Suit Knowledge: Regarding the expired ’172 patent, where relief is limited to past damages, a key question for the court will be the impact of the prior ITC proceeding. The determination of willfulness, and potential for enhanced damages, will likely depend on whether Sizewise’s conduct after receiving notice via the ITC complaint is deemed objectively reckless.