Tumble Living Inc v. Cozey Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tumble Living, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cozey Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Bew LLC; Davidson Law Group, ALC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13592, N.D. Ill., 03/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a Canadian entity without a principal place of business in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's washable rug products infringe a patent related to a two-part floor covering system that combines a washable top rug with a modular, interlocking mat via corner pockets.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for large, home-washable area rugs by creating a separable system where the decorative top layer is thin enough for a conventional washing machine.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant purchased one of Plaintiff's products marked "Patent Pending" approximately two years before the patent-in-suit issued. Plaintiff further alleges it sent Defendant a cease-and-desist letter detailing the infringement nearly a year before filing the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,171,355 - MULTI-PIECE RUG AND MAT ARRANGEMENT AND ASSEMBLY FOR FORMING A FLOOR COVERING

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 12,171,355, issued December 24, 2024 (the "'355 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies several problems with conventional area rugs: they tend to slide on or curl away from the floor, underlying protective mats also move, creating an "unsightly display," and the combined items are often too bulky and thick for easy cleaning, storage, or shipping ʼ355 Patent, col. 1:33-60
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-piece floor covering designed to solve these issues ʼ355 Patent, col. 2:30-34 It consists of a top "rug portion" and a bottom "mat portion." The top rug has "pocketed areas" on the underside of each corner ʼ355 Patent, col. 2:38-40 ʼ355 Patent, FIG. 1 The bottom mat is made of multiple "interlocking sections," similar to puzzle pieces, which form a single, uniform pad ʼ355 Patent, col. 2:45-50 ʼ355 Patent, FIG. 4 The corners of the assembled mat are inserted into the rug's corner pockets, securing the two layers together to prevent slipping and curling.
• Technical Importance: This two-part, modular design allows the top rug portion to be thin enough to be cleaned in a conventional washing machine, while the interlocking mat portion is less cumbersome to ship and store than a traditional one-piece rug pad ʼ355 Patent, col. 3:1-7 ʼ355 Patent, col. 3:14-19

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶64 The essential elements of Claim 1 include:

• An area rug assembly comprising a rug portion and a mat portion.
• A plurality of pocketed areas affixed to the bottom surface of the rug portion "at each corner area thereof only and at no other position along the bottom surface."
• A mat portion made of "multiple pieces that interlock to form a single mat" and having a "non-slip material on a top surface."
• The corners of the mat are insertable into the rug's pocketed areas to secure the two parts together.
• A final functional clause stating that this arrangement allows the rug to be "loosely positioned" over the mat (without stretching) while also being "fixed relative to the mat portion" to prevent movement.

The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "at least Claim 1" Compl. ¶64

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant Cozey's "Washable Rugs" Compl. ¶29

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Cozey Washable Rug Products utilize an "innovative two-part system" Compl. ¶44 This system is described as combining "comfortable non-slip cushioned rug pads that can be puzzled together, and a top layer" Compl. ¶52
• Visual evidence provided in the complaint shows the accused products consist of a decorative top rug and a dark, interlocking mat described as a "Modular non-slip pad" Compl. ¶67 Compl. ¶70 An image comparing the underside of the parties' respective rug portions depicts pocketed areas in the corners of both products Compl. ¶45
• The complaint alleges that Cozey directly competes with Tumble and that its marketing materials promote features, such as machine washability and a two-layer design, that mirror the benefits of the patented technology Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶58 Compl. ¶60

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'355 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute may arise from the negative limitation requiring pocketed areas "at each corner area thereof only and at no other position along the bottom surface." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused rug portion contains any other features on its underside that could be construed as an attachment or fixing mechanism, which might place it outside the literal scope of the claim.
• Technical Questions: The final "wherein" clause of Claim 1 contains functional language that may be a focus of litigation. A key question will be whether the accused product's components actually cause the rug portion to be both "loosely positioned" and simultaneously "fixed relative to the mat portion." This raises an evidentiary question about the physical behavior of the accused product and whether it meets both of these potentially conflicting functional requirements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"at each corner area thereof only and at no other position along the bottom surface"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation defines the structural attachment between the rug and mat portions. Its construction is critical because if the accused product is found to have any other form of attachment, it may not infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "position" refers to a discrete, affixed structure like the claimed pockets, and that incidental friction from the rug's bottom surface material does not constitute an attachment at "another position."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a rug bottom that is bare except for the corner pockets and a perimeter binding ʼ355 Patent, FIG. 3 A party could argue that this disclosure limits the claim scope, such that any additional functional structure on the rug's bottom surface would violate the "only" and "no other" requirements.

"loosely positioned"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in a functional clause that also requires the rug portion to be "fixed relative to the mat portion." The interplay between "loosely" and "fixed" will likely be a central issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition must be reconciled with the concurrent "fixed" requirement for the claim to be found both definite and infringed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides context by contrasting "loosely positioned" with having to "stretch the rug portion over the mat portion" ʼ355 Patent, col. 14:6-7 This suggests "loosely positioned" means the main body of the rug is not held under tension, as a fitted sheet would be, which can coexist with being "fixed" against lateral sliding.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "loosely positioned" and "fixed" are contradictory and render the claim indefinite. The specification's emphasis on preventing movement between the two portions ʼ355 Patent, col. 10:49-51 could be used to argue that the "fixed" characteristic is dominant, potentially narrowing the meaning of "loosely positioned" to a very specific, non-obvious technical state.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant actively induces infringement by providing instructional materials and videos on its website that direct customers to assemble and use the Cozey Washable Rug Products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶91 Compl. ¶97 It further pleads contributory infringement by alleging the rug portion is a material component of the invention, is specially adapted for use with the mat portion, and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use Compl. ¶¶102-105

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-patent-issuance knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendant knew of Plaintiff's pending patent rights after purchasing a "Patent Pending" marked product in October 2022 Compl. ¶¶86-88 It further alleges Defendant gained actual knowledge of the issued '355 Patent and its infringement upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter dated April 2, 2025 Compl. ¶84 The claim is bolstered by allegations of "deliberate and meticulous copying" Compl. ¶109

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and definiteness: can the terms "loosely positioned" and "fixed relative to," which appear in the same functional limitation of Claim 1, be reconciled? The outcome may depend on whether the court construes "loosely" to mean "not under tension," a condition which can coexist with being "fixed" against sliding, or if it finds the terms to be contradictory.
• A second key issue will be factual and evidentiary: does the accused rug portion have pocketed areas "only" at the corners and "at no other position," as required by the claim? The infringement analysis will likely involve a detailed examination of the Cozey rug's underside for any additional features that could be characterized as contributing to its fixation to the mat.