DCT

3:26-cv-00770

Contour Products Inc v. Pillow Solve Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00770, W.D.N.C., 09/25/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of North Carolina because a substantial part of the events, including the injury suffered by Plaintiff, occurred in the district, and alternatively because Defendant is a non-U.S. resident.
  • Core Dispute: This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiff seeks a court declaration that its "Contour Legacy Knee Pillow" does not infringe Defendant's patent and that the patent's claims are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns orthopedic pillows designed to be placed between the legs of a side-sleeper to provide comfort and proper spinal alignment.
  • Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by Defendant's assertion of patent infringement against Plaintiff through Amazon.com's patent-reporting procedures, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff's product listing from the online marketplace. The complaint also raises an invalidity challenge based on claim amendments allegedly made during patent prosecution that introduced new matter.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-10-08 '311 Patent Priority Date
2017-11-08 '311 Patent claims amended during prosecution
2018-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,143,311 Issued
2026-09-25 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed
2026-10-04 Date Amazon scheduled Plaintiff's inventory for "disposal"

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,143,311 - "Knee Pillow"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,143,311 (“Knee Pillow”), issued December 4, 2018 (the “’311 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background explains that while pillows between the knees can improve comfort for side-sleepers, sufficiently thick pillows can create a new problem: the pillow material can be pushed by the knees and apply uncomfortable sideways pressure on the sensitive knee caps (patella), potentially disrupting sleep '311 Patent, col. 1:43-54
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a knee cushion with two distinct regions. A "first region" is designed to be thick enough to provide proper spacing between the user's thighs, while a "second region" is specifically shaped and tapered to support the knee area without contacting and displacing the patella '311 Patent, col. 2:1-10 '311 Patent, abstract The patent asserts this design prevents discomfort by reducing the amount of material near the knee caps '311 Patent, col. 3:38-43
  • Technical Importance: The design purports to solve a trade-off in orthopedic pillow design, aiming to provide adequate leg separation for spinal alignment while simultaneously avoiding a common source of discomfort at the knee joint itself '311 Patent, col. 1:55-63

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint challenges the validity and infringement of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 Compl. ¶24
  • Independent Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes these essential elements:
    • A "first region" with a width and "variable thickness" configured to extend between a user's thighs to provide spacing.
    • A "second region" extending from the first region, having a "width reduced with respect to the width of the first region."
    • The second region has a "continuously variable thickness substantially reduced with respect to the thickness of the first region."
    • The second region is shaped to prevent displacement of the patella.
    • An "attachment" to attach the cushion to a user's leg.
  • The complaint seeks a declaration that the Accused Product does not infringe claims 1, 19, 20, "or any claim depending therefrom" Compl. ¶43

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Contour Legacy Knee Pillow with removable strap" (the "Accused Product") Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Product is an orthopedic leg and knee pillow sold by Plaintiff, including through the Amazon.com marketplace Compl. ¶28 The complaint provides specific dimensions for the product's functionality, alleging that the "first region" (for thighs) has a thickness of approximately 1 to 1.5 inches, while the "second region" (for knees) has a thickness of approximately 2.5 to 3 inches Compl. ¶30
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement assertions caused Amazon to remove the Accused Product's listings, freeze Plaintiff's inventory, and schedule it for disposal, indicating the product's reliance on the Amazon sales channel Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶37 The complaint includes product photography showing the Accused Product's hourglass-like shape and its consumer packaging Compl. ¶29

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The following chart summarizes the Plaintiff's primary argument for why its product does not meet a key limitation of the asserted claims.

'311 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a second region ... having ... a continuously variable thickness substantially reduced with respect to the thickness of the first region The thickness of the Accused Product's first region (thighs) is 1-1.5 inches, while the thickness of its second region (knees) is 2.5-3 inches. Therefore, the second region's thickness is increased, not reduced. ¶30; ¶31; ¶41 col. 3:38-43
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Definitional Question: The core of the non-infringement argument rests on the plain meaning of "reduced." Plaintiff contends its product's knee-area thickness is greater than its thigh-area thickness, which is the opposite of "reduced" Compl. ¶31 The case may turn on how the court construes the term "thickness" for each region and the degree of difference required by "substantially reduced."
    • Factual Question: The infringement analysis will depend on factual verification of the Accused Product's dimensions as alleged in the complaint Compl. ¶30 The parties may present conflicting measurements or methodologies for determining the "thickness" of the respective regions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "substantially reduced with respect to the thickness of the first region"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the plaintiff's non-infringement case. If the Accused Product's second region is not "substantially reduced" in thickness compared to its first region, there can be no literal infringement of claims 1, 19, and 20. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff has alleged a clear factual basis—an increase, rather than a reduction, in thickness—that directly contradicts this limitation Compl. ¶31
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue that "thickness" should be interpreted not as a single-point measurement but as an average or that it should be measured at specific corresponding points. They may also argue "substantially" is a flexible term of degree that does not require the entire second region to be thinner than the entire first region.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the second region as having a "tapering of the pillow in ... thickness" which "reduces the amount of material" to avoid contact with the knee caps '311 Patent, col. 3:38-43 This language suggests a straightforward interpretation where "reduced" means physically smaller or thinner.

  • The Term: "continuously variable thickness" (Claim 1) / "substantially continuously tapering" (Claims 19 and 20)

    • Context and Importance: These terms are the foundation of Plaintiff's invalidity argument for new matter. Plaintiff alleges these phrases were added via amendment during prosecution and are not supported by the original application's written description Compl. ¶¶49-51 The validity of the patent's key claims may hinge on whether these amendments are deemed improper.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., Supporting Validity): The patentee (Defendant) will likely argue that the original disclosure, including figures showing a curved and shaped pillow and descriptions of a "tapering" profile '311 Patent, col. 3:39, inherently disclosed a "continuously variable" or "tapering" structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, even without using those exact words.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., Supporting Invalidity): The Plaintiff explicitly argues that the original written description does not contain support for these specific limitations, making their addition improper new matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 132(a) Compl. ¶49 The court's analysis will focus on what the original specification conveyed to a skilled artisan at the time of filing.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all forms, including indirect, contributory, or by inducement Compl. ¶44 However, as a declaratory judgment action, it does not set forth a factual basis for these claims but rather denies that any such infringement has occurred.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful patent infringement. Instead, it alleges that Defendant "knew or should have known" its infringement complaint to Amazon was meritless when it was filed (Compl. ¶33; ¶58). This allegation supports Plaintiff's state law claims for tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, rather than a claim for enhanced damages under patent law Compl. ¶¶53-77

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope and factual measurement: Does the claim term "thickness substantially reduced with respect to the thickness of the first region" require a simple geometric reduction, as Plaintiff argues? The resolution will depend on the court's construction of "thickness" and "substantially reduced" and the subsequent factual findings regarding the Accused Product's actual dimensions.

  2. A key validity question will be whether the addition of the phrases "continuously variable thickness" and "substantially continuously tapering" during prosecution introduced impermissible new matter. The court will have to determine if the original patent application provided adequate written description to support these claim limitations, a finding that could invalidate the patent's core claims.

  3. Beyond patent law, a significant question is whether Defendant's enforcement actions on Amazon, which Plaintiff alleges were based on a "meritless" infringement claim, rise to the level of tortious interference. This will involve assessing Defendant's knowledge and justification when it initiated the product takedown process.