Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03012/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03012-1/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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ZINUS INC., a California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIMMONS BEDDING CO, a Delaware

Corporation, and DREAMWELL, LTD, a

limited liability company of Nevada

Defendants. __________________________________

 DREAMWELL, LTD, a limited liability

company of Nevada

Counterclaimant

v.

ZINUS INC., a California Corporation,

Counterclaim Defendant __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07- 3012 PVT

ORDER FOR SUR-REPLY BRIEF TO

SIMMONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Plaintiff Zinus Ltd. (“Zinus”) manufactures and sells a bedding product called “Mattress

-in-a-box.” The “Mattress -in-a-box” can be sold in a transportable package at mass retail stores. 

Defendant Simmons Bedding Co. (“Simmons”) is a manufacturer of bedding products.

Defendant Dreamwell, Ltd (“Dreamwell”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Simmons and owns

the rights to U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,142, entitled Method of Packaging Resiliently Compressible

Articles (“the ‘142 patent”). Dreamwell also owns the rights to the federal trademark

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 40 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 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

ORDER, page 2

“POCKET COIL .” As part of a pilot program, Wal-Mart sold the Zinus “Mattress -in-a-box”

product in some of its stores in late 2006 and early 2007. In March of 2007, Simmons and Zinus

entered into a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement prior to a visit by Simmons to the

Zinus factory in China. In May, Dreamwell sent Zinus and Wal-Mart “cease and desist” letters,

claiming that the “Mattress -in-a-box” infringes the ‘142 patent and the “POCKETCOIL”

trademark. 

Zinus filed the instant complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and

invalidity of the ‘142 patent, Violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) by false

advertising, and breach of the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure contract. 

On August 24, 2007, Simmons filed a Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

Simmons argued that Zinus had not stated a claim for False Advertising against it because the

only communication at issue was authored by Defendant Dreamwell, Ltd (“Dreamwell”), a

wholly owned subsidiary of Simmons. Simmons also argued that Zinus had failed to allege all

of the elements for a claim of breach of contract. In Reply, Simmons asserted for the first time

that the cease and desist letter could not form the basis of the false advertising claim under the

Lanham act because the letters were not statements “in commercial advertising or promotion” as

required by the act. Simmons also argued for the first time in Reply that Zinus’ allegation of

partial performance of the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement is insufficient to state

a claim for breach of the contract.

Because these claims were first raised in Reply, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later

than October 17, 2007, Zinus shall file a Sur-Reply brief addressing only these two issues. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: October 9, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 40 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2