Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00597/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00597-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court are the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment: 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 213) and Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 216). Both Motions are fully briefed and ready for review. (See

Docs. 213, 222, & 227; Docs. 216, 234, & 228). The Court’s ruling is as follows.1

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a series of alleged patent infringements. Plaintiffs Top Brand 

LLC, E-Star LLC, and Flying Star LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs,” along with Sky Creations 

LLC and John Ngan) are companies who produce and sell clothing, “including hooded 

sweatshirts and wearable blankets.”2(Doc. 122 at 4). Defendant Cozy Comfort Company 

1 Because it would not assist in resolution of the instant issues, the Court finds the 

pending Motions suitable for decision without oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

2 Plaintiff Sky Creations LLC (the fourth Plaintiff) licenses to the other Plaintiffs 

some of the clothing they sell. (Doc. 122 at 8). John Ngan (Counter Defendant and Counter 

Claimant) is a Member of Top Brand, E-Star, Flying Star, and Sky Creations. (Id. at 5).

Top Brand LLC, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Cozy Comfort Company LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-21-00597-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 35
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LLC (“Defendant” or “Cozy”) is an Arizona company selling products similar to Plaintiffs’ 

products. (Id. at 5). Defendants Brian and Michael Speciale are the co-founders and sole 

members of Cozy Comfort LLC. (Id.). There are five patents primarily at issue in this case 

(all held by Defendants)—four design patents and one utility patent3:

(i) U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 (the ‘788 patent);

(ii) U.S. Design Patent No. D905,380 (the ‘380 patent);

(iii) U.S. Design Patent No. D886,416 (the ‘416 patent);

(iv) U.S. Design Patent No. D903,237 (the ‘237 patent);

(v) U.S. Patent No. 10,420,431 (the ‘431 utility patent).

(Id. at 2–3). Plaintiffs allege Defendants contacted certain third-party retailers (e.g., 

Amazon) where both parties sell or sold their products and accused Plaintiffs’ products of 

patent infringement. (Id. at 6, 9). The third parties conducted their own internal reviews, 

resulting in Plaintiffs’ products being barred from sale on their retail websites. (Id. at 6, 

15–16). Plaintiffs maintain their products do not infringe on Defendants’ products and 

brought this action seeking, among other forms of relief, declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. (Id. at 2–3, 6).

On February 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Northern District of 

Illinois. (Doc. 1). On April 8, 2021, the case was transferred here. (Docs. 40–42). Plaintiffs 

have filed three Amended Complaints (Docs. 26, 62, & 122), and assert twenty claims4:

Counts 1–12: Requests for declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘788, 

3 A utility patent generally covers unique ideas or inventions and protects the way 

that idea or invention functions; a design patent generally covers new designs of existing 

products and only protects the way the product looks. See Great Neck Saw Mfrs., Inc. v. 

Star Asia U.S.A., LLC, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1051 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (“A design patent, 

unlike a utility patent, protects only the ornamental design of an article, and does not extend 

to any functional aspects of the design.”).

4 On August 9, 2021, this Court denied Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss, in 

which Defendants sought dismissal of Counts 7–12. (Doc. 89).

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 35
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

‘380, ‘416, and ‘237 design patents;

Counts 13–16: False marking; state-law unfair competition; 

tortious interference with contract; tortious interference with 

prospective economic advantage;

Counts 17–18: Requests for declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity of the ‘431 utility patent;

Counts 19–20: Cancellation of U.S. Trademark Registrations 

5,608,347 and 5,712,456.

(Doc. 122 at 20–61). In their Answer to Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 128), Defendants 

assert ten infringement-related counterclaims:

Counterclaims 1, 2, 9, 10: Infringement of the ‘788, ‘380, ‘237, 

and ‘416 design patents;

Counterclaim 3: Federal trade dress infringement and unfair 

competition, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);

Counterclaim 4: Common law trade dress infringement and 

unfair competition;

Counterclaim 5: Requests for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the ‘900 patent;

Counterclaims 6–8: Trademark infringement under federal and 

Arizona law; common law trademark infringement and unfair 

competition.

(Doc. 128 at 71–81).5 On November 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Answer to Defendants’ 

Counterclaims. (Doc. 139). The parties filed their claim construction briefing between 

October and December 2021. (See Docs. 135, 137, 142, & 143). On May 20, 2022, the 

parties appeared before the Court for a Markman Hearing, pursuant to Markman v. 

Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). (Doc. 167). On August 8, 2022, the Court 

entered an Order (Doc. 182) construing the disputed claims in the ‘788, ‘380, ‘416, ‘237, 

and ‘431 patents. In February 2023, the parties filed their respective Motions for Summary 

Judgment, the Motions that are presently before the Court. (See Docs. 213 & 216).

5 On Aug. 18, 2021, this Court dismissed two other counterclaims originally asserted 

by Defendants: unjust enrichment & tortious interference with a contract. (Doc. 91).

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 3 of 35
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). 

Material facts are those facts “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing 

law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of 

material fact arises if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for 

the nonmoving party.” Id.

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of 

presenting the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record, together 

with affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material 

fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant fails to carry its initial burden of production, 

the nonmovant need not produce anything. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz 

Co., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2000). But if the movant meets its initial 

responsibility, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate the existence of a factual 

dispute and that the fact in contention is material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In other 

words, the nonmovant “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical 

doubt as to the material facts,” and, instead, must “come forward with ‘specific facts 

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the judge’s function is not to 

weigh the evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether there is a genuine 

issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In its analysis, the court must view the factual 

record and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Leisek v. Brightwood 

Corp., 278 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002). The court need consider only the cited materials, 

but it may consider any other materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

///

///

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 4 of 35
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. DISCUSSION

A. Alter Ego Issue

As a general matter, the owner of a corporation or limited liability company is not 

liable for the obligations of that entity. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Starr Pass Resort 

Devs. LLC, No. 2 CA-CV 2018-0030, 2019 WL 2237471, at *15 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 22, 

2019) (citing Dietel v. Day, 16 Ariz. App. 206, 208 (1972)). However, “[i]mposing alterego liability—commonly referred to as ‘piercing the corporate veil’—breaks from [this] 

general principle[] and holds . . . an owner liable for corporate debts.” Id. (citing Dietel, 16 

Ariz. App. at 208). “The alter-ego status is said to exist when there is such unity of interest 

and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and owners cease to exist.” 

Dietel, 16 Ariz. App. at 208. To establish alter-ego liability, a plaintiff “must prove both 

(1) unity of control and (2) that observance of the corporate form would sanction a fraud 

or promote injustice.” Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins. Co., 170 Ariz. 34, 37 (1991).

The alter-ego determination is “highly fact-based” and “require[s] considering the 

totality of the circumstances.” Pimal Prop., Inc. v. Cap. Ins. Grp., Inc., No. CV11–02323–

PHX–DGC, 2012 WL 608392, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 27, 2012) (quotations marks and 

citation omitted). Factors considered include, but are not limited to, “failure to maintain 

formalities of separate corporate existence; . . . plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of separate 

corporate existence; owners’ making of interest-free loans to corporation; maintaining of 

corporate financial records; commingling of personal and corporate funds; diversion of 

corporate property for shareholders’ personal use; observance of formalities of corporate 

meetings; . . . and filing of corporate income tax returns.” Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case 

Power & Equip. Co., 179 Ariz. 155, 160–61 (Ct. App. 1994) (citations omitted).

Additionally, “[u]ndercapitalization, where it is clearly shown, is an important factor in 

determining whether the doctrine of alter ego should be applied.” Ize Nantan Bagowa, Ltd. 

v. Scalia, 118 Ariz. 439, 443 (Ct. App. 1978).

Defendants request that John Ngan be found “ultimately liable for any claims 

asserted and damages awarded in this case, as he is the alter ego of Plaintiffs.” (Doc. 216 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 5 of 35
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

at 9). The Court finds that material factual disputes exist precluding summary judgment in 

Defendants’ favor on the alter-ego issue. The parties dispute the application of virtually 

every factor. For example, the parties dispute how the Plaintiff companies record their sales 

revenues and other financial data, including whether and how the companies report 

company-specific sales data. They dispute the significance of Plaintiffs E-Star and Top 

Brand’s annual tax reporting of zero income after deductions. They dispute the meaning of 

certain fund transfers that were made. They dispute the number of employees that each 

Plaintiff company has had at various times and whether and by whom those employees 

were issued paychecks. They dispute the number of assets that each Plaintiff company has. 

They dispute the implications that should be drawn from Plaintiffs’ overall corporate 

structure, which involves a consolidation of profits and losses in Plaintiff Flying Star and 

alleged undercapitalization of Plaintiffs E-Star and Top Brand. The parties do not even 

agree on numerous evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of Mr. Ngan’s 

Declaration,6as well as whether Plaintiffs complied with this Court’s October 27, 2022 

Discovery Dispute Order which ordered Plaintiffs to disclose numerous financial records.

The Court concludes that, in this case, the alter-ego issue is not well-suited for 

determination based on the parties’ combined ten pages of summary judgment briefing. 

The analysis involves untangling a web of financial documents, deposition testimony, 

evidentiary and factual disputes, and theories about the legality and viability of corporate 

structure and conduct. Given the impact that this alter-ego determination may have on 

questions of liability and damages in this litigation, it is critical that this issue be resolved 

thoroughly and correctly. The Court denies Defendants’ request for summary judgment on 

the issue of Mr. Ngan’s potential alter-ego liability.

///

6 The Court notes that Defendants raise issue with Mr. Ngan’s Declaration (Exhibit 

C to Plaintiffs’ Response), asserting that the sham affidavit rule requires its exclusion from 

consideration. (Doc. 228 at 2–4). Given that this argument was first raised in the Reply, 

Plaintiffs were not afforded an opportunity to respond.

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 6 of 35
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Dismissal of Individual Defendants

Defendants seek complete dismissal of individual Defendants Michael and Brian 

Speciale. (Doc. 216 at 9–10). Defendants reason that there are no claims that are plausibly 

pleaded against them, and no claims for which they could plausibly be held liable. (Id. at 

9). The Court agrees with respect to Claims 1–12 and 17–20, which seek declaratory 

judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability as to Defendants’ patents, 

or cancellation of Defendants’ trademarks. As Defendants note, “neither Brian nor Michael 

Speciale are the proper defendant for declaratory judgments related to patents [or

trademarks] owned by Cozy.” (Doc. 216 at 10). Moreover, Plaintiffs focus their Response 

on ensuring the individual Defendants remain in this action with respect to the false 

marking, unfair competition, and tort claims. (Doc. 234 at 11–12). Plaintiffs do not make 

any argument with respect to the patent and trademark claims and fail to offer a plausible 

theory for the individual Defendants’ liability under those claims. Thus, the Court grants 

summary judgment to Defendants Michael and Brian Speciale on Claims 1–12 and 17–20 

and dismisses these claims to the extent they are brought against the individual Defendants.

With respect to the remaining claims (Claims 13–16), the Court first notes that two 

of them are dismissed in this Order: Claims 13 and 15. See infra. pt. III(C)(3) and (4). Thus, 

Defendants’ request to dismiss the individual Defendants is rendered moot with respect to 

these two claims. This leaves only Claim 14 (unfair competition under Illinois state law)

and Claim 16 (tortious interference with business expectancy) as possible grounds for the 

individual Defendants’ liability. Defendants argue that Claims 14 and 16 “do not mention 

either Brian or Michael Speciale individually” and that “[n]either Speciale is the proper 

defendant for an ‘unfair competition’ . . . or ‘tortious interference’ claim.” (Doc. 216 at 

10). On this point, the Court does not agree. Plaintiffs allege numerous facts indicating that 

Defendants Michael and Brian Speciale were at least involved with Defendants’ efforts to 

submit infringement claims to Amazon (and other third-party retailors), which resulted in 

the allegedly wrongful takedown of Plaintiffs’ products. (See, e.g., Doc. 235 at 26–28). 

Given that the allegedly false infringement claims and wrongful takedowns are at the center 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 7 of 35
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of Plaintiffs’ unfair competition and tortious interference theories, the Court rejects 

Defendants’ contention that the individual Defendants have nothing to do with Claims 14 

and 16 and that “neither [] is the proper defendant” for such claims.

Given their ties to the facts underlying Claims 14 and 16, the Court declines to 

entirely dismiss the individual Defendants from this case at this time. Whether they may 

be held individually liable for their own actions—or for the actions of Defendant Cozy via 

a piercing-the-corporate-veil theory—is a fact-intensive question that the parties do not 

fully and sufficiently brief in their summary judgment briefing. The Court grants summary 

judgment to the individual Defendants Michael and Brian Speciale on Claims 1–12 and 

17–20, denies as moot Defendants’ request for summary judgment with respect to the 

individual Defendants on Claims 13 and 15, and denies Defendants’ request for summary 

judgment with respect to the individual Defendants on Claims 14 and 16. For now, the 

individual Defendants will remain in this action.

C. Summary Judgment on Claims and Counterclaims

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 17. 

(Doc. 213 at 3). Plaintiffs request partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claim 13. (Id.).

Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment as to Defendants’ Counterclaims 1, 2, and 9, and 

concede summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Defendants’ Counterclaim 5. (Id.).

Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 

20, and on Defendants’ Counterclaim 5. (Id.). Defendants concede summary judgment in 

Plaintiffs favor on Plaintiffs’ Claims 4, 10, and 17, and withdraws Counterclaims 2 and 9. 

(Id.). The Court will now address these various summary judgment requests.

1. Infringement and Validity of ‘380 and ‘237 Patents

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their claims for non-infringement of the ‘380 

and ‘237 patents (Claims 4 & 10), as well as on Defendants’ corresponding counterclaims 

for infringement (Counterclaims 2 & 9). (Doc. 213 at 6). Defendants no longer oppose this 

request and concede the infringement issue. (Doc. 222 at 5 (“Due to the Court’s ruling in 

the Claim Construction Order, [Defendants are] no longer asserting that [Plaintiffs] 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 8 of 35
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

infringe[] the ‘237 and ‘380 Patents. As a result, [Defendants] withdraw[ their] claims of 

infringement as it relates to the ‘237 and ‘380 Patents and does not oppose [Plaintiffs’] 

motion with respect to non-infringement of those two patents.”)). Therefore, Court grants 

summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on Claims 4 and 10 and on Counterclaims 2 and 9.

Plaintiffs additionally seek summary judgment on their claims for invalidity of the 

‘380 and ‘237 patents (Claims 5 & 11). (Doc. 213 at 4). Unlike with infringement, 

Defendants do oppose Plaintiffs’ request on the issue of validity. (Doc. 222 at 5). First, 

Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the validity issue as moot, given that the 

infringement claims have been resolved. (Id.). This position finds some support in the 

caselaw. See Phonometrics, Inc. v. N. Telecom Inc., 133 F.3d 1459, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 

(“[A] district court has discretion to dismiss a counterclaim alleging that a patent is invalid 

as moot where it finds no infringement.”). However, “the better practice is to treat both the 

validity and infringement issues,” particularly where—as here—the issue of noninfringement was conceded rather than decided on the merits. See Leesona Corp. v. United 

States, 530 F.2d 896, 906, n.9 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (internal citations omitted) (“While the better 

practice is to treat both the validity and infringement issues, particularly in view of the 

public interest in the validity issue, it is not always necessary to do so. Where, as here, 

noninfringement is clear and invalidity is not plainly evident, it is appropriate to treat only 

the infringement issue.”); see also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 

327, 330 (1945) (internal citations omitted) (“There has been a tendency among the lower 

federal courts in infringement suits to dispose of them where possible on the ground of 

non-infringement without going into the question of validity of the patent. It has come to 

be recognized, however, that of the two questions, validity has the greater public 

importance, and the District Court in this case followed what will usually be the better 

practice by inquiring fully into the validity of this patent.”). The Court declines to dismiss 

the validity issue as moot.

Turning to the merits of the parties’ validity dispute, Plaintiffs contend that the ‘380 

and ‘237 patents are invalid as anticipated, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102. Plaintiffs argue 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 9 of 35
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that the invention claimed in both patents (“The Comfy Original”) “was in public use, on 

sale, or otherwise available to the public well over one year prior” to the patents’ respective 

effective filing dates (“EFD”). (Doc. 213 at 4). Under § 102, a patent may be found invalid 

if it was anticipated by prior art. See 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (“A person shall be entitled to a 

patent unless . . . the claimed invention was . . . in public use, on sale, or otherwise available 

to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”). To prove 

anticipation by prior art, the party seeking to invalidate the patent must demonstrate “that 

each element of the claim, properly construed, is found in a single prior art reference.” 

Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. PDI Commc'n Sys., Inc., 522 F.3d 1348, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

“Anticipation is a question of fact” and “may be resolved on summary judgment if there is 

no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 1356–57.

In this case, the ‘237 patent has an EFD of September 16, 2019. (Doc. 182 at 20). 

The ‘380 patent’s EFD is April 11, 2020. (Id. at 21). In determining these dates, the Court 

rejected Defendants’ contention that the patents were entitled to the earlier EFD of the 

‘788 patent. (See id. at 11–21). Of particular relevance here, the Court reasoned that—

having compared the designs disclosed in the ‘380 and ‘237 patents with the design 

depicted in the ‘788 patent—Defendants “failed to show that a person skilled in the art 

would conclude that the ‘788 patent . . . disclosed the design depicted by the ‘237 patent.” 

(Id. at 20). Specifically, the Court found that “[c]onsidering the ‘237 patent’s three 

embodiments together as one single design claim . . . shows a claim encompassing a 

distinctly wider scope of design variations than the comparably narrow design claim 

depicted in the ‘788 patent.” (Id. at 17). The Court concluded that the designs depicted in 

the ‘237 and ‘380 patents contained numerous structural changes that were “sufficiently 

significant to produce different designs.” (Id.).

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ own products, including The Comfy Original, are

the prior art which anticipated the ‘380 and ‘237 patents. (Doc. 213 at 5–6). The Comfy 

Original was first offered for sale on September 28, 2017—clearly well before the patents’ 

EFDs. (Doc. 203-5 at 207). However, rather than performing an element-by-element 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 10 of 35
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

comparison of the claims to the prior art item in question, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ 

own admissions during this litigation satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden to prove invalidity by 

anticipation. (Doc. 213 at 5–6). Specifically, Plaintiffs point to an argument Defendants’ 

counsel made at the Markman Hearing in which he acknowledged that—if the ‘380 patent 

and ‘237 patent were not entitled to rely on the earlier priority date of the ‘788 patent—

all of [Defendants’] products would immediately become prior 

art and it would have been impossible for [the Patent 

Examiner] to issue the ‘380 patent or the ‘237 patent because 

in the ‘237 patent, images directly taken from the ‘788 are in 

that patent [and the ‘788 patent] would have clearly anticipated

[the ‘380 and ‘237 patents].

(Doc. 223 at 3 (emphasis added) (citing Doc. 203-5 at 199)). In addition, Plaintiffs point to 

two instances in which Defendants “admitted” their products, including The Comfy 

Original, were covered by the ‘380 and ‘237 patents. First, Defendants’ website stated that

“The Comfy Original, The Comfy Original Jr., The Comfy Dream, The Comfy Teddy Bear 

Quarter Zip, and The Comfy Original Quarter Zip are protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 

10,420,431[;] D859,788[;] D886,416[;] D903,237[;] D905,380.” (Doc. 203-7 at 8). 

Second, in response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories, Defendants indicated that The Comfy 

Original was covered by the ‘788, ‘237, and ‘380 patents. (Doc. 203-5 at 207).

Defendants do not dispute any of these admissions and readily acknowledge that 

“throughout discovery and up until this Court’s Claim Construction Order, Cozy believed 

and understood . . . that all three patents disclosed the same subject matter.” (Doc. 222 at 

5–6). After this Court ruled that the ‘380 and ‘237 patents “disclosed [] different design[s] 

entirely from the Comfy Original claimed in the ‘788 patent,” Defendants simply changed 

their position and no longer maintain that the ‘380 or ‘237 patents cover their products. (Id.

at 6 (emphasis in original); see also Doc. 223 at 11).

In essence, Plaintiffs’ position is that Defendants’ previous allegations—that The 

Comfy Original was covered by the ‘380 and ‘237 patents—are sufficient, on their own, to 

satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden of demonstrating that The Comfy Original anticipated the claims 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 11 of 35
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of the ‘380 and ‘237 patents. (Doc. 227 at 7–8). In contrast, Defendants’ position is that 

Plaintiffs are “effectively request[ing] that the Court reverse itself and hold that for the 

purpose of summary judgment, the ‘788 patent and The Comfy Original described therein 

disclose the later patented designs in the ‘237 and ‘380 patents.” (Doc. 222 at 6).

Plaintiffs rely on Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

That case, along with Evans Cooling Sys., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 125 F.3d 1448 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997), set forth a narrow exception to the general rule that a party seeking to prove 

invalidity by anticipation must perform an element-by-element comparison of the claim to 

the prior art item. The Vanmoor–Evans Cooling line of cases provide that “when the same 

product is accused of infringement by a patentee and claimed as prior art by the defendant, 

the alleged infringer may claim invalidity without an element-by-element analysis.” Big 

Baboon, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 4:17-cv-02082-HSG, 2019 WL 1791421, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) (citing Evans Cooling, 125 F.3d at 1450–52). Stated slightly 

differently, “[w]hen the item alleged by one party to be anticipating prior art is the exact 

same item that the other party contends infringes, the party seeking to prove invalidity by 

anticipation can establish invalidity without actually performing an element by element 

comparison of the claim to the prior art item in question.” Nextec Applications v. 

Brookwood Co., Inc., 703 F. Supp. 2d 390, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Vanmoor, 201 F.3d 

at 1366). “Because the entire basis of the infringement claim under these circumstances is 

the patentee’s contention that the accused product contains every limitation of the patented 

claim, if the accused infringer can prove that the accused product actually existed before 

the filing date of the asserted patent, the accused infringer’s evidentiary burden to prove 

invalidity by anticipation will be satisfied [] by the patentee’s claims of infringement 

against that product.” Id.

The facts of the present case simply do not align with the factual scenario described 

in Vanmoor, Evans Cooling, and their progeny. Here, the item alleged by Plaintiffs to be 

anticipating prior art (The Comfy Original) is not the “exact same item” that Defendants 

contend infringes (Plaintiffs’ products). The present facts align more closely with “the 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 12 of 35
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

typical case,” distinguished in Evans Cooling, “where the patentee [Defendants] has placed 

some device on sale prior to the critical date and the accused infringer [Plaintiffs] must 

demonstrate that this device actually embodied or rendered obvious the patented 

invention.” Evans Cooling, 125 F.3d at 1451.

Plaintiffs argue that this distinction does not matter, as “[t]he analysis of whether a 

product is covered by the patent is the same whether the product is prior art of the inventor 

or a product of the alleged infringer.” (Doc. 227 at 7). Even so, this is beside the point. This 

Court’s review of the caselaw reveals that courts are very reluctant to extend the Vanmoor–

Evans Cooling principles to anything other than the exact factual scenario presented in 

those cases. See, e.g., IXYS Corp. v. Adv. Power Tech., Inc., No. C 02-03942 MHP, 2004 

WL 540513, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2004) (finding that “[t]he logical nexus that existed 

between infringement and invalidity in Evans Cooling” was not present “[w]here a plaintiff 

may succeed on its claim without proving that the allegedly ‘on sale’ product itself 

infringes”); ViaSat, Inc. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00260-H-(WVG), 2013 

WL 12061800, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (calling Vanmoor–Evans Cooling doctrine a 

“limited exception” and declining to extend it to different facts). Simply put, “Vanmoor

and Evans [Cooling] stand for the proposition that where infringement claims are directed 

against the very item that is alleged to be anticipatory prior art, the infringement claims 

themselves suffice to establish that every element of the claim is found in the accused 

item.” Nextec, 703 F. Supp. 2d at 423 (emphasis in original). Here, Defendants’ 

infringement claim is directed against Plaintiffs’ products, and Plaintiffs’ anticipation 

argument is directed against Defendants’ products, namely The Comfy Original. Perhaps 

even more harmful to Plaintiffs’ argument for application of the Vanmoor–Evans Cooling

doctrine is the fact that Defendants conceded that Plaintiffs’ products did not infringe 

Defendants’ patents. Therefore, even if the anticipatory prior art was one of Plaintiffs’ 

products, the infringement concession in this case does nothing to prove anticipation. 

Under this factual setup, Defendants’ infringement claim against Plaintiffs’ products does 

not itself prove that The Comfy Original contains each and every limitation of the ‘380 and 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 13 of 35
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

‘237 patents. The Court finds Vanmoor inapplicable and declines Plaintiffs’ invitation to 

extend the case to the facts presented here.

Their reliance on Vanmoor aside, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants 

cannot escape their previous position that The Comfy Original (and Defendants’ other 

related products) were covered by the ‘788, ‘380, and ‘237 patents. As noted above,

Defendants expressly stated this position in their Response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. 

(Doc. 203-5 at 207–08). Defendants’ website made the same assertion. (Doc. 203-7 at 8). 

Even more pointedly, Defendants asserted—directly to this Court—that if the ‘380 and 

‘237 patents were not entitled to the ‘788 patent’s priority date, “all of [their] products 

would immediately become prior art” and would have “clearly anticipated” the ‘380 and 

‘237 patents. (Doc. 203-5 at 199). Defendants do not dispute any of this evidence, nor do 

they offer any evidence to support their new position that the ‘380 and ‘237 patents do not

cover The Comfy Original (or any of their other related products). To the contrary, 

Defendants readily acknowledge that this was their position “throughout discovery and up 

until this Court’s Claim Construction Order,” but that they have simply changed their 

position in response to this Court’s Claim Construction Order. (Doc. 222 at 6).

As Plaintiffs point out, Defendants cannot evade summary judgment and save their 

patents from being found invalid as anticipated by simply changing their position on a 

material fact. The Comfy Original was covered by the ‘237 and ‘380 patents, as expressly 

asserted and admitted by Defendants numerous times. This Court’s priority date 

determination did nothing to change this fact. Defendants assert that that a ruling 

invalidating the patents amounts to a reversal of, or is otherwise at odds with, this Court’s 

previous finding on the priority-date issue. According to Defendants, “[e]ither the ‘237 and 

‘380 patents are different than the ‘788 patent and The Comfy Original, or they disclose 

the same subject matter as Cozy argued [with respect to the priority-date dispute], and they 

are entitled to priority.” (Doc. 222 at 6). The Court finds this to be an oversimplification. 

Two things can be true, and Plaintiffs do not provide any legal authority to the contrary. 

First, and as this Court found, the ‘237 patent claimed “a distinctly wider scope of design 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 14 of 35
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

variations” than the ‘788 patent, was therefore not disclosed by the ‘788 patent, and thus 

not entitled to its earlier priority date. (See Doc. 182 at 17–20). Second, the ‘237 patent—

with its “distinctly wider scope of design variations”—covered products, like The Comfy 

Original, which were also covered by the ‘788 patent and thus on sale or available for 

public use prior to the relevant EFDs. (See Doc. 182 at 12 (recognizing that, “outside of 

the removal of the hood outline and the cuffs,” the ‘237 patent’s “third embodiment is 

identical to the ‘788 patent design”)).

All told, the Court finds that Defendants have offered no legally supported reason 

why they should be able to deny what was long considered by both parties in this case to 

be an undisputed fact—that The Comfy Original was covered by the ‘237 and ‘380 patents. 

Given that it remains undisputed that The Comfy Original was sold long before the EFDs 

of either the ‘237 or ‘380 patents, the Court finds no genuine issue of material fact exists 

as to whether The Comfy Original, as prior art, anticipated the ‘237 and ‘380 patents. These 

two patents are invalid as anticipated and the Court grants summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ 

favor on their invalidity claims (Claims 5 and 11).

2. Infringement and Validity of ‘788 Patent

The ’788 patent claims “an enlarged overgarment with an elevated marsupial pocket 

as shown and described.” (Doc. 122-2 at 2). Plaintiffs argue that the ‘788 patent is indefinite 

because it fails to inform those skilled in the art as to the definition of the terms “enlarged” 

and “overgarment.” (Doc. 213 at 7–12). Plaintiffs insist that the terms “enlarged” and 

“overgarment” are terms of degree and that they are “entirely subjective and indefinite” 

because “the determination of whether or not a product is ‘enlarged’ is dependent not on 

the garment itself, but rather on the person wearing it.” (Id. at 10). Plaintiffs offer extrinsic 

evidence in the form of testimony from the inventors and the inventors’ patent attorney to 

demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand with 

reasonable certainty the meaning of the terms and the scope of the design. (Id. at 8–11).

In response to Plaintiffs’ indefiniteness argument, Defendants first argue that 

Plaintiffs are attempting to reopen claim construction, and that the Court “should deny 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 15 of 35
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Plaintiffs’] Motion on the ‘788 Patent and hold that the ‘788 Patent claim has already been 

construed and therefore, is not indefinite.” (Doc. 222 at 8–9). Defendants point out that 

“[a]t no time during [the] claim construction process did [Plaintiffs] ever argue that the 

terms ‘enlarged’ and ‘overgarment’ were indefinite,” that the Court’s “adopted claim 

construction rendered the ‘788 patent claim indefinite,” or “that an ordinary observer 

‘would not understand the scope of the design’ if the words ‘enlarged’ or ‘overgarment’ 

were used.” (Id. (emphasis in original)). Defendants call Plaintiffs’ indefiniteness argument 

“both untimely and improper.” (Id. at 9).

The Court declines to reject Plaintiffs’ argument outright merely because Plaintiffs 

did not raise their indefiniteness argument at the claim construction stage. Defendants’ 

position implies that a party waives any indefiniteness contentions with respect to claim 

terms that it did not nominate for claim construction. Defendants fail to cite any legal 

authority recognizing such a waiver as a per se rule. Rather, many courts have found just 

the opposite, holding that an indefiniteness claim “is not waived” just because the party 

contesting the patent “did not seek claim construction of the [disputed] term.” Apple, Inc. 

v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 932 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“[F]ailure to seek 

construction of a term during claim construction does not constitute waiver of an 

indefiniteness argument.”); Takeda Pharm. Co. v. Handa Pharms., LLC, No. C-11-00840 

JCS, 2012 WL 1243109, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2012) (“Due to the largely factual 

nature of [the indefiniteness] inquiry, the [c]ourt concludes that [the] question is more 

suitable for determination on summary judgment than at the claim construction phase of 

the case.”). To be sure, “the issues of indefiniteness and claim construction are—or at least, 

often will be—intertwined.” Cipher Pharms. Inc. v. Actavis Lab'ys FL, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 

3d 508, 513 (D.N.J. 2015). This is because a “[c]ourt must attempt to determine what a 

claim means before it can determine whether the claim is invalid for indefiniteness.” ASM 

Am., Inc. v. Genus, Inc., No. C-01-2190-EDL, 2002 WL 1892200, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

15, 2001). Nevertheless, “[n]othing in the law confines a party’s indefiniteness argument 

to the claim construction stage of the litigation.” Versata Software, Inc. v. Zoho Corp., 213 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 16 of 35
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F. Supp. 3d 829, 834 (W.D. Tex. 2016). “[T]he Federal Circuit's statements that 

indefiniteness is intertwined with claim construction mean only that the Court must attempt 

to determine what a claim means before it can determine whether the claim is invalid for 

indefiniteness, and not that the Court must determine indefiniteness during the claim 

construction proceedings.”

7 ASM Am., 2002 WL 1892200, at *15; see also Conoco, Inc. v. 

Energy & Env’t, Int'l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)

(“[A] district court may engage in claim construction during various phases of litigation, 

not just in a Markman order. We have recognized that district courts may engage in rolling 

claim construction, in which the court revisits and alters its interpretation of the claim terms 

as its understanding of the technology evolves.”).

In light of this dispute over whether considering Plaintiffs’ indefiniteness claim 

amounts to a “reopening” of claim construction, the Court finds it appropriate to clarify 

what its August 8, 2022 Claim Construction Order (Doc. 182) did and did not hold. In their 

claim construction briefing, the parties primarily disagreed on whether the Court needed to 

adopt verbal constructions for Defendants’ design patents. (Doc. 182 at 24–25). Plaintiffs 

argued that “several aspects of the claimed designs are purely functional and not protected 

by the patents, and that this Court [had] a duty to—at the least—construe the claims in a 

manner distinguishing their ornamental features from those that are purely functional.” 

(Id.). Plaintiffs additionally argued “that the prosecution history of the design patents—in 

particular, the ‘788 patent—narrows the scope of Defendants’ design claims” and that the 

Court “should adopt verbal constructions for each of the design patents that call out certain 

features.” (Id. at 25). Defendants, on the other hand, argued against any additional claim 

construction of the design patents, relying on caselaw cautioning against verbal 

7

Indeed, at least one court has even hinted that raising indefiniteness in claim 

construction briefing is improper altogether and should instead be the subject of a separate 

motion. See ASM Am., 2002 WL 1892200, at *16 (“Genus has not even filed a motion 

seeking to invalidate any of the claims of the '590 patent on the basis of indefiniteness, but 

simply asserts its arguments in its opposition claim construction brief. This is not a 

preferable procedure.”).

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 17 of 35
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

constructions in design patents. (Id.).

The Court focused its analysis solely on the issues of functionality and prosecution 

history, namely whether and to what extent such considerations had a limiting effect on the 

scope of Defendants’ design patents. (See id. at 24–33). In the end, the Court found that 

factual disputes existed precluding any definitive ruling on the issues. (Id. at 32–33).

Critically, it was this finding—that factual disputes existed on the issues of functionality 

and prosecution history—that led the Court to its ultimate rejection of Plaintiffs’ suggested 

claim constructions:

All told, the Court rejects the claim constructions suggested by 

Plaintiffs for the ‘788 . . . patent[] because they rely on 

functionality and prosecution history arguments that this Court 

declines to decide at this time. Even if functionality and 

prosecution history are relevant and narrow the scope of 

Defendants’ design claims, “in order to prevent placing ‘undue 

emphasis’ on certain elements of the design, they ought [to] be 

addressed at the summary judgment or jury instruction stage, 

rather than the claim construction stage.” Nike, 2019 WL 

12528983, at *10 (quoting Reddy v. Lowe’s Co., Inc., 60 F. 

Supp. 3d 249, 254 (D. Mass. 2014)). “To provide the jury with 

a verbalized construction of the [design patents’] claims which 

directs their attention to the . . . illustrations in the patent and 

then describes only those elements that are implicated by 

prosecution history and functionality would place undue 

emphasis on those few elements. This is precisely the danger 

against which the Egyptian Goddess court cautioned.” Depaoli 

v. Daisy Mfg. Co., Inc., No. 07ocv-11778-DPW, 2009 WL 

2145721, at *5 (D. Mass. July 14, 2009). The design patents in 

issue (the ‘788, ‘416, ‘237, and ‘380 patents) are construed as 

they are presently written.

(Id.). The Court repeats its claim construction holding—and, in particular, its underlying 

reasoning—to caution the parties against treating the Court’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ 

suggested claim constructions (and corresponding adoption of Defendants’ position that no 

verbal constructions be issued) as an absolute and unalterable resolution on the scope and 

construction of Defendants’ design patents. The Court did not adopt Plaintiffs’ suggested

verbal constructions, but it also did not hold that the ‘788 patent claim had been constructed 

once and for all. In discussing Plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment on indefiniteness,

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 18 of 35
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the parties spend much of their briefing arguing whether the Court would be “reopening” 

or “redoing” claim construction by considering Plaintiffs’ indefiniteness argument. (See

Docs. 222 at 8–9 & 227 at 8). To this, the Court simply notes that claim construction is an 

ongoing process that can be revisited if necessary. See Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake 

Enters., Inc., 302 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“District courts may engage in rolling 

claim construction, in which the court revisits and alters its interpretation of the claim terms 

as its understanding of the technology evolves. . . . This is particularly true where issues 

involved are complex . . . because the meaning of the claims is unclear from the intrinsic 

evidence.”); see also Utah Med. Prods., Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 350 F.3d 1376, 

1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that district court did not err in amending claim 

construction during oral arguments for pretrial motions nearly two years after original 

construction).

The Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ indefiniteness argument. “[A] patent is invalid 

for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and 

the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art 

about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 

901 (2014). A patent is always presumed to be valid and “the burden of proving invalidity 

[is] on [Plaintiffs].” Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1360 

(Fed. Cir. 1984); see also 35 U.S.C. § 282(a). “That burden is constant and never changes 

and is to convince the court of invalidity by clear evidence.” Id.; see also Sci. Applications 

Int’l Corp. v. United States, 154 Fed. Cl. 594, 613 (2021) (“[I]ndefiniteness must be proven 

by clear and convincing evidence.”). Although the ultimate question of definiteness is one 

of law, it often involves underlying questions of fact. See Green Edge Enters., LLC v. 

Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC, 620 F.3d 1287, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Definiteness . . . [is a] 

question[] of law with underlying factual determinations.”); BJ Servs. Co. v. Halliburton 

Energy Servs., Inc., 338 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[D]efiniteness . . . is amenable 

to resolution by the jury where the issues are factual in nature.”).

“As a threshold matter, ‘it is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 19 of 35
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including 

the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history’ because ‘intrinsic 

evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of the disputed 

claim language.’” Sci. Applications & Rsch. Assocs. Inc. v. Zipline Int'l, Inc., No. 22-CV04480-JSC, 2023 WL 4551067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2023) (quoting Vitronics Corp. 

v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[T]he specification is always 

highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single 

best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”)). “In most cases, an analysis of the intrinsic 

evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term, and in such cases, it is 

inappropriate to rely on extrinsic evidence.” Id. (emphasis added). “Moreover, where 

intrinsic evidence resolves ambiguity, it is improper for extrinsic evidence, such as expert 

testimony, to introduce ambiguity.” Id.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show clear and convincing evidence 

sufficient to prove indefiniteness at this summary judgment stage. Plaintiffs’ indefiniteness 

argument relies exclusively on one specific type of extrinsic evidence: the deposition 

testimony of the ‘788 patent’s inventors and drafting attorney. (See Doc. 213 at 8–11).

Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that these three individuals could not identify the meaning of 

the terms “enlarged” and “overgarment” when asked during their depositions. (Id.). 

However, the law is clear that, generally, “[i]t is particularly inappropriate to consider 

inventor testimony obtained in the context of litigation in assessing validity under section 

112, paragraph 2, in view of the absence of probative value of such testimony.” Solomon 

v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Solomon explained this 

stance toward inventor testimony by relying on the Federal Circuit’s holding in Markman:

In Markman, we addressed the closely related issue of 

litigation-driven inventor testimony in the context of claim 

construction, and concluded that such testimony is entitled to 

little, if any, probative value. . . . We reasoned that an inventor 

is not competent to construe patent claims. . . . We find this 

analysis equally compelling in the present context, as the 

determination of whether a claim complies with section 112, 

paragraph 2, is “drawn from the court’s performance of its duty 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 20 of 35
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as the construer of patent claims.” . . . Although we recognize 

that “which the applicant regards as his invention” is subjective 

language, . . . once the patent issues, the claims and written 

descriptions must be viewed objectively, from the standpoint 

of a person of skill in the art.

Id. at 1379–80 (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 985 (Fed. Cir. 

1995)) (other internal citations omitted). The Solomon court concluded that the district 

court had erred by using inventor testimony to invalidate the claims of a patent under § 112. 

Id. at 1380; see also EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Servs., LLC, 312 F. Supp. 3d 

830, 843 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 

1575, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) (finding defendant “failed to prove indefiniteness by clear 

and convincing evidence” after rejecting inventor testimony, noting “Markman requires us 

to give no deference to the testimony of the inventor about the meaning of the claims”).

Plaintiffs contest this line of caselaw with two arguments, neither of which are 

persuasive. First, Plaintiffs argue that “the substantive caselaw relied on by Cozy all predates Nautilus8 when courts were obligated to apply the now rejected ‘insolubly 

ambiguous’ and ‘not amenable to construction’ standards when addressing indefiniteness.” 

(Doc. 227 at 9). Although it is true that Solomon was decided over twenty-three years ago—

well before Nautilus—Plaintiffs do not meaningfully explain how Nautilus’ rejection of 

the “insolubly ambiguous” and “not amenable to construction” standards changed how 

courts should view inventor testimony. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not cite to any case in which 

Solomon’s rule with respect to inventor testimony was actually overruled or even 

disfavored. Rather, courts have continued to use the relevant principles set forth in Solomon

in the years since Nautilus was decided. As just one example, in Leupold—a 2020 

decision—the District of Oregon rejected similar inventor testimony and relied on Solomon

to do so. Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Lightforce USA, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 3d 886, 898–99 (D. 

Or. 2020). In that case (a case expressly relied upon by Defendants), the defendant 

contested the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the indefiniteness issue by 

8 Nautilus was decided in 2014. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 898.

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 21 of 35
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

referring to the patent inventor’s deposition admissions “that he [did] not know how [the 

two disputed terms] differ[ed]” and that he “[did] not know what [another disputed term] 

means as used in the claims.” Id. at 899. “Without further argument or evidence, [the 

defendant] argue[d] that this admission alone evinces a ‘lack of clarity’ in the meaning of 

the terms.” Id. The Leupold court rejected the defendant’s argument, noting “the Federal 

Circuit’s admonition against inventor testimony in this context,” finding that the 

defendant’s “reliance on the inventor’s deposition testimony alone is not sufficient to [meet 

its burden on summary judgment],” and holding that “without any further argument or 

evidence from [the defendant] as to why [the disputed claims] may be indefinite, [the 

plaintiff]’s motion for summary judgment on the issue is granted.” Id.; see also Cayenne 

Med., Inc. v. Medshape, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-0451-HRH, 2016 WL 2606983, at *4 (D. Ariz. 

May 6, 2016) (post-Nautilus case relying in part on Solomon’s general caution against 

inventor testimony).

Second, Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Solomon by arguing that, unlike this case—

where the issue is whether the claims provide a person of ordinary skill reasonable certainty 

as to their scope—“the problem addressed [in Solomon] was a district court’s holding 

claims invalid due to a conflict between the claim language and inventor testimony as to 

the intent of the inventor and what the inventor believed it invented.” (Doc. 227 at 9 

(emphasis in original)). To be sure, although the law is clear that “[t]he subjective intent of 

the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining 

the scope of a claim,” Markman, 52 F.3d at 985, the Federal Circuit has indeed recognized 

that an inventor’s testimony may be “pertinent as a form of expert testimony, for example, 

as to understanding the established meaning of particular terms in the relevant art.” 

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1347, n.5 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). However, the Court has fully reviewed the relevant deposition testimony in this 

case and cannot conclude that the inventors were actually testifying in this capacity or to 

this specific issue. Rather than being asked whether the terms “enlarged” and 

“overgarment,” when “read in light of the specification . . . and the prosecution history, fail 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 22 of 35
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to inform . . . those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention,” the inventors were 

plainly asked for their understanding of the meaning of the terms. The Court has no idea 

whether they were speaking from their own subjective perspective as to their intent in using 

the terms, or if they were speaking from their expertise as “one skilled in the art” who was 

“viewing the design as would an ordinary observer.” See In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369, 

1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also EcoServices, 312 F. Supp. 3d at 843 (“While [the inventor] 

could provide testimony as to what a person skilled in the art may understand [the disputed 

term] to mean, Defendant does not provide such testimony. Therefore, what little new 

testimony Defendant offers does not change the fact that Defendant has failed to prove 

indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence.”).

Even if the testimony in this case is viewed as expert testimony probatively speaking 

to the inventors’ understanding of the established meaning of the terms “enlarged” and 

“overgarment” in the relevant art, the Court is not persuaded that the ‘788 patent can be 

found indefinite solely on the basis of such extrinsic testimony. Again, Plaintiffs do not 

rely on any other evidence to support their indefiniteness argument; in particular, Plaintiffs 

do not provide any meaningful discussion of intrinsic evidence, despite the importance of 

such evidence in the indefiniteness analysis. See C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 

388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quotations and citation omitted) (noting that extrinsic 

evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative 

meaning of claim language”). This, coupled with the other factual disputes remaining 

related to the scope of the ‘788 patent (functionality and prosecution history), leads the 

Court to find that summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor is not appropriate at this time.

Plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment on their indefiniteness claim as to the ‘788 patent 

(Claim 2) is denied. Additionally, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for summary 

judgment as to their noninfringement claim (Claim 1) and as to Defendants’ corresponding 

infringement claim (Counterclaim 1), as Plaintiffs’ argument on these claims was premised 

on this Court first finding the ‘788 patent to be invalid. (See Doc. 213 at 12).

///

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 23 of 35
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. False Marking and Unfair Competition Claims

Plaintiffs assert a false marking claim (Claim 13) against Defendants. (Doc. 122 at 

34–49). Both parties now seek summary judgment on the claim. The false marking statute, 

35 U.S.C. § 292(a), prohibits the use in advertising of any words or combination of words 

implying that the article being sold is patented when it is not. A false marking claim has 

two elements: “(1) marking an unpatented article and (2) intent to deceive the public.” 

Forest Grp., Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009). To have standing 

to bring an action for a violation of § 292(a), one must have suffered a “competitive injury” 

as a result of the violation. § 292(b); see also Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc., 785 F.3d 1396, 

1402 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[Section] 292 limits standing to entities that have ‘suffered a 

competitive injury as a result of a violation of [§] 292(a).”).

Plaintiffs request partial summary judgment as to the first element only—that is, 

Plaintiffs seek a ruling as a matter of law that Defendants falsely marked certain products 

with patent numbers. (Doc. 213 at 12–14). Conversely, Defendants argue that the entire 

false marking claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs (1) admitted they do not 

compete with Defendants and therefore lack standing; (2) lack any evidence that they 

suffered any harm due to any alleged false marking; and (3) lack any evidence as to the 

second element, i.e., intent to deceive the public. (Doc. 216 at 11–14).

The Court agrees with Defendants’ first and second points. First, Plaintiffs entirely 

fail to respond to Defendants’ argument that Mr. Ngan and Mr. Nick Lin—two 

representatives who testified on behalf of the Plaintiff companies—testified during their 

depositions that Plaintiffs’ products did not compete with Defendants. (See Doc. 234 at 7–

10). Such failure to respond may be deemed a concession on the issue. See Garcia v. Salt 

River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1099 (D. Ariz. 

2007) (citing LRCiv. 7.2(i)) (“Generally, a party’s failure to respond to arguments in a 

motion ‘may be deemed consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may 

dispose of the motion summarily.’”); see also Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 684 Fed. Appx. 

974, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (noting that “competitive 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 24 of 35
25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

injury” has been defined as “a wrongful economic loss caused by a commercial rival”).

Even assuming that Plaintiffs were competitors with Defendants in the relevant 

market, however, the Court additionally finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that 

they suffered a competitive injury caused by Defendants’ alleged false marking. A 

“competitive injury” has been defined as “a wrongful economic loss caused by a 

commercial rival, such as the loss of sales due to unfair competition; a disadvantage in a 

plaintiff’s ability to compete with a defendant, caused by the defendant’s unfair 

competition.” Gravelle, 684 Fed. Appx. at 978 (quoting Sukumar, 785 F.3d at 1400). “In 

the false marking context, the injury must be one inflicted on a firm’s competitive activity, 

caused by the false marking.” Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Here, the false marking alleged by Plaintiffs occurred when Defendants advertised 

on their website that their various Cozy products were protected by the ‘431, ‘788, ‘416, 

‘237, ‘380, and other pending patents. (See Docs. 122 at 34–49 & 213 at 12–13). Plaintiffs 

allege that this representation was false. (Id.). In responding to Defendants’ argument that 

they lacked evidence demonstrating that they suffered any harm or injury due to the alleged 

false marking, Plaintiffs argue that they “lost sales from the inability to sell during the 

takedown periods” and that they “incurred legal expenses in addressing wrongful 

takedowns, which takedowns were supported by Cozy’s false assertions that its products 

were covered by certain patents.” (Doc. 234 at 7–8). The problem with these assertions of 

competitive injury, however, is that such lost sales and legal expenses were caused by 

Defendants’ allegedly wrongful use of its patents to “takedown” Plaintiffs’ products from 

online retailers like Amazon, not by Defendants’ alleged false markings. Indeed, Plaintiffs 

make no attempt to show or argue that the lost sales and legal expenses were caused by the 

alleged false markings on Defendants’ website. The harms relied upon by Plaintiffs—lost 

sales and legal expenses—are adequately addressed by Plaintiffs’ claim for tortious 

interference with business expectations (Claim 16), which alleges that Defendants made 

false claims of patent infringement to online retailers (e.g., Amazon) and induced them to 

terminate their business relationship with Plaintiffs and to take down Plaintiffs’ products 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 25 of 35
26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from their websites. (See Doc. 122 at 54). Given the absence of a material factual dispute 

regarding how Plaintiffs were directly injured from the allegedly false representations 

Defendants made on their website, the Court concludes that summary judgment in 

Defendants’ favor is appropriate on Plaintiffs’ false marking claim. Claim 13 is dismissed.

Given this dismissal, the Court also denies Plaintiffs’ corresponding request for partial 

summary judgment on the false marking claim. (See Doc. 213 at 12–13).

Additionally, Defendants request summary judgment as to Claim 14 (Unfair 

Competition Under 815 ILCS 510/2). (See Doc. 216 at 11 (requesting summary judgment 

on Claim 14 for “Unfair Competition Premised on False Marking”)). Defendants fail to 

meaningfully explain why Claim 14 should be dismissed or why dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 

false marking claim necessitates dismissal of Claim 14 as well.

Pursuant to 815 ILCS 510/2, Illinois law prohibits deceptive trade practices, which 

occur when a person, among other things, “disparages the goods, services, or business of 

another by false or misleading representation of fact.” 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 

510/2(a)(8). Here, Plaintiffs’ Claim 14 is partially premised on Plaintiffs’ allegations of 

false marking. (See Doc. 122 at 50)). However, as Plaintiffs point out in their Response,

(see Doc. 234 at 10), Claim 14 is also based on another, separate theory—that Defendants 

“falsely represented to Amazon that Plaintiffs’ products infringed” their patents, causing 

Plaintiffs to be damaged insofar as Plaintiffs were prevented from selling their products on 

Amazon’s website. (Doc. 122 at 49–50). Defendants offer no explanation as to why Claim 

14 should be dismissed merely because Plaintiffs’ false marking theory was rejected and 

dismissed. Defendants do not even mention Claim 14 in their Reply. (See generally Doc. 

228). The Court denies Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Claim 14.

4. Tortious Interference Claims

Plaintiffs assert two separate tortious interference claims: tortious interference with 

a contract (Claim 15) and tortious interference with a prospective economic 

advantage/business expectancy (Claim 16). (Doc. 122 at 51–56). Both are premised on the 

same theory—that Defendants made false claims of patent infringement to third parties 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 26 of 35
27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

such as Amazon, causing the third parties to prevent Plaintiffs from selling their products 

on their retail websites and thereby interfering with Plaintiffs’ contracts and business 

expectancies. (Id.). Defendants request summary judgment in their favor on both claims.

“To succeed on a claim of tortious interference with contract, a plaintiff must prove: 

(1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship; (2) knowledge of the relationship on 

the part of the interferer; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach; 

(4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship has been disrupted; and (5) that the 

defendant acted improperly.” Tortolita Veterinary Servs., PC v. Rodden, 252 Ariz. 96, 104 

(Ct. App. 2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ 

claim for tortious interference with a contract must be dismissed because, among other 

reasons, Plaintiffs “have presented no contract between the Plaintiffs and Amazon.” (Doc. 

216 at 15). The Court agrees. The only evidence offered by Plaintiffs supporting the 

existence of a contract is their reference to their own Exhibit PP, which contains the 

“Amazon Seller Agreements.” (See Doc. 235-4 at 266–306). Such evidence fails to 

meaningfully demonstrate that Plaintiffs had a contract with Amazon that could serve as 

the basis for their claim. First, as Defendants point out, the Amazon Seller Agreements 

cited by Plaintiffs appear to be nothing more than “generic sample terms located on the 

Amazon website” that fail to “evidence a contract between any individual Plaintiff and 

Amazon.” (Doc. 228 at 9). Second, even if the Amazon Seller Agreements somehow 

demonstrated Plaintiffs’ contractual agreements with Amazon, this Court has already 

expressly precluded the Amazon Seller Agreements from consideration as evidence in this 

action. (See Doc. 259 at 9–10). Therefore, given the absence of any evidence of a contract, 

the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claim for tortious 

interference with a contract (Claim 15).

To succeed on a claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy—

sometimes referred to as interference with a “business relationship” or a “prospective 

economic advantage”—a plaintiff must prove the following elements: “(1) [t]he existence 

of [a] valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 27 of 35
28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; (3) intentional interference inducing 

or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant 

damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.” Antwerp 

Diamond Exch. of Am., Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Maricopa Cnty., Inc., 130 Ariz. 

523, 529–30 (1981) (citations omitted). Defendants argue that dismissal of this claim is 

appropriate because, among other reasons, Federal Circuit law protects her from having 

her own good-faith assertion of patent infringement used against her in a state-law tort 

action. (Doc. 216 at 16–18).

Defendants are correct that “federal patent law preempts state-law tort liability for 

a patentholder’s good faith conduct in communications asserting infringement of its patent 

and warning about potential litigation.” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Comput. Grp., 

Inc., 362 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cit. 2004) (citation omitted). The key here is good faith, 

for Plaintiffs can “survive federal preemption only to the extent that those claims are based 

on a showing of ‘bad faith’ action in asserting infringement.” Id. The Court finds that a 

factual dispute exists as to whether Defendants’ infringement claims were made to Amazon 

in good faith, precluding summary judgment on this claim. At the least, the record indicates 

that Defendants objectively knew that Plaintiffs’ products did not infringe the ‘431 patent 

and that “no cease-and-desist communications were supposed to be sent out [to Amazon] 

identifying the ‘431 patent” as a basis for infringement. (Doc. 216 at 18, n.7); see also

Mikohn Gaming Corp. v. Acres Gaming, Inc., 165 F.3d 891, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[B]ad 

faith is not supported when the information is objectively accurate.”). Regardless of how 

it happened, such communications were sent to Amazon and some of Plaintiffs’ products 

were taken down based on their alleged infringement of the ‘431 patent. Although 

Defendants contend that this was merely an accident and not suggestive of bad faith, 

Plaintiffs offer evidence—deposition testimony from the individual Defendants Michael 

and Brian Speciale and emails relating to Defendants’ takedown efforts—showing that 

Defendants failed to take action to correct the mistake even after learning that Amazon had 

improperly taken down products based on the ‘431 patent. (See Doc. 235 at 26–27, 35). 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 28 of 35
29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Even assuming that Defendants’ takedown efforts based on the ‘788 patent were made in 

good faith, this factual dispute regarding the ‘431 patent is sufficient to preclude summary 

judgment on the tortious interference with a business expectancy claim.9 The Court denies 

Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for tortious interference 

with a business expectancy/prospective economic advantage (Claim 16).

5. Trademark Cancellation Claims

In Claims 19 and 20, Plaintiffs seek to cancel two trademark registrations owned by 

Defendants: Registration No. 5,608,347 for THE COMFY (“the ‘347 trademark”) and 

Registration No. 5,712,456 for THE COMFY (“the ‘456 trademark”). (Doc. 122 at 58–61).

The ‘347 trademark “is directed and limited to goods in Class 24 for blanket throws, namely 

whole body blankets.” (Id. at 58). The ‘456 trademark “is directed to Class 35 for On-line 

retail store services featuring blanket throws, namely, whole body blankets.” (Id. at 60).

Plaintiffs’ Response brief indicates that Plaintiffs have at least two theories underlying their 

claims for cancellation of Defendants’ trademarks.10 (Doc. 234 at 13–18). First, Plaintiffs 

argue for cancellation based on fraud. (Id. at 13–17). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that, 

although the trademark applications listed “blanket throws, namely whole body blankets” 

as the applied-for goods, the product actually sold by Defendants—according to 

Defendants’ own admissions and other evidence such as their patent application—is a 

garment rather than a blanket. (Id.). Thus, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants made a false 

representation of fact in their applications and that Defendants have never sold the goods 

set forth in the applications. (Id.). Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ trademark 

9 Although they do not return to the argument in their Reply, Defendants appear to 

also argue that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate evidence supporting the first element—that 

is, evidence that Plaintiffs had a valid business expectancy. (See Doc. 216 at 15–18). The 

Court does not agree. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were selling their products on Amazon. 

Plaintiffs’ continued business with Amazon, on its own, constitutes a “valid business 

expectancy” to support Plaintiffs’ claim.

10 Defendants note that Plaintiffs’ Complaint appears to also allege cancellation 

based on “genericness” and “abandonment,” but that “Plaintiffs have not produced or 

identified any information supporting these arguments.” (Doc. 216 at 18–19, n.8).

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 29 of 35
30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“THE COMFY” is “merely descriptive” of the articles involved and as such invalid. (Id. at 

17–18); see also Bada Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 426 F.2d 8, 11 (9th Cir. 1970) 

(“The law is that a word which is in its primary meaning merely descriptive of the goods 

to which it is applied may not be appropriated as the exclusive trademark of a single 

seller.”).

As to the fraud theory, “[a] party who believes he has been harmed by a trademark’s 

registration may seek the cancellation of that trademark’s registration on certain specified 

grounds, including that the trademark was obtained by the commission of fraud on the 

United States Patent and Trade Office (“USPTO”).” Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, 

Inc., 738 F.3d 1085, 1097 (9th Cir. 2013); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1064 (“A petition to cancel 

a registration of a mark . . . may . . . be filed . . . [a]t any time if the registered mark . . . was 

obtained fraudulently or contrary to the provisions of section 1054 of this title or of 

subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 1052 of this title.”). “Fraud in procuring a trademark 

occurs only when an applicant knowingly makes false, material representations of fact in 

connection with [the] application.” BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Cent. Coast Agric. Inc., 

615 F. Supp. 3d 982, 1028 (D. Ariz. 2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “To 

prevail on a claim for cancellation based on fraud, therefore, a claimant must have evidence 

of ‘(1) a false representation regarding a material fact; (2) the registrant's knowledge or 

belief that the representation is false; (3) the registrant's intent to induce reliance upon the 

misrepresentation; (4) actual, reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation; and 

(5) damages proximately caused by that reliance.’” Id. (quoting Hokto, 738 F.3d at 1097).

In seeking summary judgment, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate 

evidence to support the first element—that is, that Defendants made a false representation 

regarding a material fact in connection with the trademark applications. (Doc. 216 at 18–

19). Specifically, Defendants argue that “whole body blankets” are Cozy’s primary product 

and that Plaintiffs’ contention that the product is not a blanket but rather a “garment” is 

merely a “litigation-driven argument” that “is not a basis to cancel Defendants’ trademark 

registrations when both the USPTO and Defendants consider ‘whole body blanket’ to be 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 30 of 35
31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

an accurate description of the Comfy products being sold.” (Id. at 19). In support of this, 

Defendants cite to a single excerpt from Defendant Michael Speciale’s (Cozy’s owner) 

deposition testimony:

Q: Do you have any idea what a whole-body blanket is?

[Speciale]: I define it as a wearable blanket.

Q: What’s a wearable blanket?

A: The Comfy.

(Id.). Based on this, Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ trademark cancellation 

claims with prejudice. (Id.).

Given that Defendants’ Motion only raises issue with the first element of a 

cancellation-based-on-fraud claim, Plaintiffs need only demonstrate that a material factual 

dispute exists as to that first element in order to preclude summary judgment. The Court 

finds that Plaintiffs have done so. Their Response cites to testimony from Defendants 

Michael and Brian Speciale indicating that they did not know what a “whole body blanket” 

was. (Doc. 234 at 13–14). This testimony, arguably on its own, creates a factual dispute 

because it contradicts the testimony relied upon by Defendants. Plaintiffs also point to a

patent application filed by Michael and Brian Speciale prior to their trademark application. 

(Id.). In the patent application, they defined the product as an “overgarment.” (Id.). 

Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that just a few months before the ‘347 trademark application, 

Defendants described its product in an email by stating “[w]hereas the Snuggie is a 

wearable blanket, the Cozy is an actual garment.” (Id. at 16 (citing Doc. 235-4 at 3)). The 

Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of demonstrating a material factual 

dispute with respect to the first factor by pointing to instances in which Defendants have 

referred to the product as a garment or otherwise denied that it is a “whole body blanket.”

In the Reply, Defendants respond by first listing the five elements of a cancellationbased-on-fraud claim. (Doc. 228 at 10). Defendants then argue that:

Here, after two years of litigation there is ZERO evidence of 

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 31 of 35
32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fraud. ZERO evidence that calling THE COMFY a “whole 

body blanket” is false. ZERO evidence that Defendants called 

THE COMFY a “whole body blanket” with knowledge it was 

false. And ZERO evidence that the trademark office relied on 

Defendants’ calling THE COMFY a “wearable blanket” to 

their damage.

(Id. at 11). Not only is this a series of conclusory assertions insufficient to satisfy 

Defendants’ burden at summary judgment, but they also relate to elements that Defendants 

did not challenge in their short, two-paragraph argument in their original Motion. (See Doc. 

216 at 18–19). For example, Defendants contention that there is “ZERO evidence that 

Defendants called THE COMFY a ‘whole body blanket’ with knowledge it was false” 

relates to the second element. Likewise, Defendants contention that there is “ZERO 

evidence that the trademark office relied on Defendants’ calling THE COMFY a ‘wearable 

blanket’ to their damage” relates to the fourth and fifth elements. Even if such assertions 

were supported by evidence, the Court could not consider them. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 

F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We agree . . . that ‘where new evidence is presented in 

a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new 

evidence without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond.’”).

Although the parties provide arguments relating to Plaintiffs’ apparent 

“descriptiveness” theory, (see Docs. 234 at 17–18 & 228 at 11–12), the Court will not 

address them. Defendants did not seek summary judgment on this alternate theory, in part 

because they assert Plaintiffs failed to mention the theory as a basis for their claims in the 

parties’ pre-summary judgment conferral, (see Doc. 216 at 18), and because, according to 

Defendants, Plaintiffs “have not produced or identified any information supporting [the 

descriptiveness] argument[]” and “did not conduct any study, draft any report, or hire any 

expert to do so.” (Id. at 18–19, n.8). In sum, the Court denies Defendants’ request for 

summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ trademark cancellation claims (Claims 19 and 20).

6. Concessions by Parties

Plaintiffs asserted a claim (Claim 17) seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement as to the ‘431 patent, a utility patent owned by Defendants. (Doc. 122 at 56–

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 32 of 35
33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

57). In their Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants indicate that they do not allege 

infringement by Plaintiffs of the ‘431 patent and that summary judgment of noninfringement is appropriate. (Doc. 222 at 7). Therefore, the Court grants summary 

judgment to Plaintiffs on Claim 17.

Defendants asserted a counterclaim (Counterclaim 5) seeking a declaratory 

judgment that their products do not infringe Plaintiffs’ U.S. Design Patent No. D728,900

(the ‘900 patent). (Doc. 128 at 76). In their Motion, Plaintiffs “stipulate that none of the 

products Defendants raise in their Counterclaim infringe the ‘900 patent.” (Doc. 213 at 3, 

n.2). Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Counterclaim 5.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docs. 

202 & 213) is granted in part and denied in part as to Plaintiffs’ various requests for 

summary judgment. Specifically, the Court rules as follows:

1. Summary judgment is entered in Plaintiffs’ favor on Claims 4 and 10 

(non-infringement of the ‘380 and ‘237 patents). Summary judgment is 

also entered in Plaintiffs’ favor on Counterclaims 2 and 9 (infringement 

of the ‘380 and ‘237 patents). Counterclaims 2 and 9 are dismissed.

2. Summary judgment is entered in Plaintiffs’ favor on Claims 5 and 11 

(invalidity of the ‘380 and ‘237 patents).

3. Plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment on Claims 1 and 2 (invalidity 

and non-infringement of the ‘788 patent) is denied. Plaintiffs’ request for 

summary judgment denying Defendants’ Counterclaim 1 (infringement 

of the ‘788 patent) is denied.

4. Plaintiffs’ request for partial summary judgment on Claim 13 (false 

marking) is denied.

///

///

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 33 of 35
34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 216) is granted in part and denied in part as to Defendants’ various requests for 

summary judgment. Specifically, the Court rules as follows:

1. Defendants’ request for summary judgment on the issue of John Ngan’s 

potential alter-ego liability is denied.

2. Summary judgment is: granted in favor of individual Defendants Brian 

Speciale and Michael Speciale as to Claims 1–12 and 17–20; denied as 

moot with respect to the individual Defendants Brian Speciale and 

Michael Speciale on Claims 13 and 15; and denied with respect to the 

individual Defendants Brian Speciale and Michael Speciale on Claims 

14 and 16. Defendants’ request that Brian Speciale and Michael Speciale 

be dismissed from this action entirely is denied.

3. Summary judgment is entered in Defendants’ favor on Claim 13 (false 

marking). Claim 13 is dismissed.

4. Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Claim 14 (unfair 

competition) is denied.

5. Summary judgment is entered in Defendants’ favor on Claim 15 

(tortious interference with a contract). Claim 15 is dismissed.

6. Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Claim 16 (tortious 

interference with a business expectancy/prospective economic 

advantage) is denied.

7. Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Claims 19 and 20 

(cancellation of trademarks ‘347 and ‘456) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ concessions and stipulations with 

respect to Claim 17 (non-infringement of the ‘431 utility patent) and Counterclaim 5 (noninfringement of the ‘900 patent) are granted. Summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on 

Claim 17 is granted. Summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Counterclaim 5 is 

granted. Claim 17 and Counterclaim 5 are dismissed.

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 34 of 35
35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other Claims or Counterclaims not 

addressed in this Order—or in a previous Order from this Court—remain.

Dated this 24th day of August, 2023.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:21-cv-00597-SPL Document 265 Filed 08/25/23 Page 35 of 35