Smithers Family Enterprises LLC v. Luno Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Smithers Family Enterprises LLC (Utah)
  • Defendant: Luno, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Cross-Border Counselor, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-8085, C.D. Cal., 07/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Central District of California based on Defendant Luno, Inc. being a California corporation and having its designated agent for service of process and original patent application address within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "D-Hive" line of air mattresses does not infringe Defendant's design patent for an air mattress, and that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of inflatable air mattresses specifically configured for use in the cargo areas of sport utility vehicles (SUVs).
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant Luno, Inc. submitting a patent infringement complaint to Amazon.com, which resulted in the deactivation of Plaintiff Smithers' product listings. Smithers alleges that Luno refused to retract the Amazon complaint, prompting this declaratory judgment suit. The complaint also notes that during prosecution, the patent application was initially rejected for indefiniteness before being allowed after the submission of amended drawings. Smithers further alleges that Luno's own prior public disclosures and sales of a similar product more than one year before the patent's filing date render the asserted patent invalid.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-07-20	Luno Life Facebook photo posted (cited as reference on patent)
2019-08-31	Third-party YouTube video on SUV air mattress published (cited as reference on patent)
2019-09-06	Third-party forum post regarding purchase of Luno mattress
2020-06-30	Critical Date for prior art (one year prior to application filing)
2021-06-30	U.S. Design Patent Application No. 29/797,436 filed
2023-03-01	Approximate start of listing history for a representative D-Hive product
2024-10-17	U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application
2025-02-14	Luno submitted amended drawings to the USPTO
2025-08-12	U.S. Design Patent No. D1,087,663 S issued
2026-06-29	Luno submitted infringement complaint to Amazon; Amazon deactivated listings
2026-06-30	Takedown of Smithers' product listings took full effect
2026-07-06	Smithers' counsel sent demand letter to Luno
2026-07-13	Luno responded and refused to retract the complaint
2026-07-22	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,087,663 S - "Air Mattress"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,087,663 S ("the '663 Patent"), "Air Mattress," issued August 12, 2025.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint indicates the product category is inflatable air mattresses designed for camping use within the cargo areas of sport utility vehicles Compl. ¶¶1-2 Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than solving a functional problem.
• The Patented Solution: The '663 Patent protects the specific ornamental design for an air mattress. The design consists of two adjacent, elongated mattress bodies joined at the center, featuring cutouts intended to accommodate a vehicle's wheel wells Compl. ¶10 '663 Patent, FIG. 1 The patent explicitly states that features shown in broken lines, such as the surface texturing and the vehicle interior shown in Figure 8, are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design Compl. ¶9 '663 Patent, description The claim's scope is defined by the overall silhouette, proportions, and contours shown in the solid lines of the patent's figures '663 Patent, FIG. 1 '663 Patent, FIG. 2
• Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a distinct aesthetic for a product in the vehicle-based camping and "overlanding" market Compl. ¶¶15-16 Compl. ¶18

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for: "The ornamental design for an air mattress, as shown and described" '663 Patent, claim
• The scope of a design patent claim is determined by the illustrations in the patent. Key visual elements defined by the solid lines in the '663 Patent drawings include:
  • The overall silhouette of two adjacent mattress bodies Compl. ¶10
  • The specific perimeter contours, including wheel-well notches Compl. ¶10
  • Shoulder transitions and center division Compl. ¶10
  • The mattress thickness and end contours Compl. ¶10

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are four models of the "D-Hive" air mattress sold on Amazon under ASINs B0BVTDBD6Y, B0DS9M26ZJ, B0C7R81KJN, and B0CFLXKBG4 Compl. ¶17

Functionality and Market Context

The D-Hive Products are inflatable air mattresses designed for SUV cargo areas Compl. ¶1 They are described as sharing the same internal construction and structural design, with minor variations in length, color, and the inclusion of base extenders Compl. ¶17 The complaint alleges the products were highly successful, achieving a "Best Sellers Rank" in their category on Amazon and representing an estimated $1.7 million in "at risk" sales due to the delisting by Amazon Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶19 The complaint states that photographs of the accused D-Hive products are attached as Exhibit C Compl. ¶9

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff (Smithers) argues for non-infringement. The table below summarizes Smithers' allegations regarding the key differences between its products and the patented design, which form the basis of its non-infringement claim.

'663 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

Claimed Feature of Patented Design (as shown in figures)	Alleged Non-Infringing Feature of D-Hive Products	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
Inwardly recessed side contours along the length of the mattress bodies.	The D-Hive Products have straight side contours.	¶29; ¶44	'663 Patent, FIG. 2
A specific overall proportion and silhouette described by Luno as a "slimmer profile and elongated mattress body."	The D-Hive Products are alleged to lack this "slimmer, elongated appearance."	¶30; ¶44	'663 Patent, FIG. 2
A wider head section that, using the unclaimed transverse cushion rows as a visual reference, spans five rows.	The D-Hive Products' head section spans four transverse cushion rows.	¶29; ¶44	'663 Patent, FIG. 2

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central issue for non-infringement is whether the visual differences alleged by Smithers-specifically the straight versus recessed side contours and the overall proportions-are substantial enough to lead an "ordinary observer" to conclude the designs are not substantially the same. The analysis will depend on how much weight is given to the overall configuration versus these specific features.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be the direct visual comparison of the D-Hive products to the patent drawings. The court will have to determine if the D-Hive products' side contours are indeed "straight" and if their proportions are discernibly different from the patented design, as alleged Compl. ¶44

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance as depicted in the drawings rather than the construction of written terms. However, certain features may become focal points of the dispute over the design's scope.

• The "Term": The "Inwardly Recessed Side Contours"
• Context and Importance: This feature is a primary point of differentiation asserted by Smithers Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶44 Smithers also alleges that Luno itself distinguished its later patented design from an earlier 2019 product based on features like a "slimmer profile" Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶30 The interpretation of whether this recessed contour is a mandatory and defining feature of the claimed design, or merely a minor detail, will be critical to both the non-infringement and invalidity arguments.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring Luno): Luno may argue that the overall impression is defined by the novel combination of a two-part mattress with wheel-well cutouts, and that an ordinary observer would not focus on the minor curvature of the side walls. The general perspective view in Figure 1 could be presented as capturing the holistic design, with the side contour being a less significant element.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring Smithers): Smithers will likely argue that the recessed side contour is clearly and consistently depicted in solid lines across multiple views (e.g., Figures 1, 2, and 3) and is therefore an essential part of the claimed design. In a potentially crowded field of prior art, such specific details may be crucial for distinguishing the patented design and limiting its scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Invalidity: Smithers presents two primary invalidity arguments.
  1. Anticipation/Obviousness (§§ 102/103): The complaint alleges that Luno's own public disclosures and sales of its "Signature" Air Mattress in 2019, more than one year prior to the '663 Patent's filing date, constitute invalidating prior art Compl. ¶¶15-16 Compl. ¶¶31-35 Compl. ¶50 It argues that if the '663 Patent is construed broadly enough to cover the D-Hive products, it would also be anticipated by or obvious in light of this earlier Luno design Compl. ¶36
  2. Functionality (§ 171): Smithers also argues that the claimed design's overall configuration, particularly its two-piece shape and wheel-well notches, is dictated by the functional requirements of fitting into an irregular SUV cargo space and is therefore unpatentable as a design patent Compl. ¶52
• Exceptional Case: Smithers requests that the court find the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award attorneys' fees, though the specific basis for this is not fully developed in the initial complaint beyond the core allegations Prayer for Relief ¶e

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

This case presents a classic "squeeze" play in a design patent context, forcing the patent holder to defend a narrow interpretation of its claim to maintain validity against its own prior art, which in turn may support the accused infringer's non-infringement position.

1. The Validity/Infringement Squeeze: A core issue will be whether the '663 Patent's claimed design can be interpreted broadly enough to be "substantially the same" as the D-Hive products, while simultaneously being narrow enough to be novel and non-obvious over Luno's own, allegedly similar, 2019 prior art mattress. The court's resolution of this tension may decide both the infringement and validity questions.
2. The Role of Prior Art in the Observer's Eye: A key evidentiary question is how an "ordinary observer," properly informed by the prior art (including Luno's 2019 design), would perceive the D-Hive products. The case will test whether the alleged differences in side-contours and proportions are meaningful design distinctions or merely trivial variations in the eyes of a consumer familiar with the existing options.
3. The Functionality Defense: A fundamental question for the patent's survival is whether its primary features-the split design and wheel-well cutouts-are dictated by function. The court will need to determine if the design is primarily ornamental or if its appearance is so intertwined with its utilitarian purpose of fitting an SUV that it is ineligible for design patent protection under § 171.