- 1 - 

ME1 20463437v.5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

ASCION, LLC,

 d/b/a REVERIE 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TEMPUR SEALY INTERNATIONAL, 

INC., (f/k/a TEMPUR-PEDIC 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.) AND TEMPURPEDIC MANAGEMENT, LLC 

Defendants. 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Civil Action No: _ 

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 

INFRINGEMENT 

Demand for Jury Trial 

Plaintiff Ascion, LLC, d/b/a Reverie (“Reverie”), complains against 

Defendants Tempur Sealy International, Inc., f/k/a Tempur-Pedic International, 

Inc. (“Tempur Sealy”), and Tempur-Pedic Management, LLC (“Tempur 

Management”) (collectively, “Tempur-Pedic” or “Defendants”) as follows: 

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Ascion, LLC, d/b/a Reverie (“Reverie”) is a limited liability 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, with 

its principal place of business located at 750 Denison Ct., Bloomfield Hills, 

Michigan 48302. 

2. Reverie is an innovator in bedding technology, particularly adjustable 

bed technology. Reverie has made significant investments of funds and employee 

time in research and development and in building its innovative intellectual 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 1 of 27 Pg ID 1
-2- 

ME1 20463437v.5

property portfolio. Due to its investments and innovative culture, Reverie has been 

awarded approximately 46 patents in the bedding field, including the patents 

asserted in this litigation. 

3. Defendant Tempur Sealy is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business located 

at 1000 Tempur Way, Lexington, Kentucky 40511. Upon information and belief, 

Tempur Sealy was formerly known as “Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,” until it 

changed its name in or about 2013 in conjunction with its acquisition of Sealy 

Corporation. 

4. Defendant Tempur Management is, upon information and belief, a 

Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business located at 

1000 Tempur Way, Lexington, Kentucky 40511. Tempur Management is, upon 

information and belief, a subsidiary of Tempur Sealy. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws 

of the United States, Title 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1367(a) and 

1338(a). 

6. This action also involves allegations of breach of confidentiality 

agreements under state and common law. This Court has subject matter 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 2 of 27 Pg ID 2
-3- 

ME1 20463437v.5

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties are citizens of different states and 

the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. Alternatively, this 

Court may hear the state and common law claims under the doctrine of 

supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because these claims arise from the 

same core of facts or related facts and circumstances. 

7. Tempur Sealy is a global bedding company with extensive operations 

in the United States. Tempur Sealy directly and through its distributors and other 

intermediaries makes, uses, sells, imports in the United States, and/or imports into 

the United States, various bedding products, including adjustable beds and 

foundations, remote controls for adjustable beds, software for touch screen remote 

controls, and related products, including the products accused of infringement in 

this case. 

8. Tempur Sealy and Tempur Management have availed themselves of 

the benefits and privileges of conducting business in the State of Michigan, and the 

exercise of jurisdiction over them would not offend traditional notions of fair play 

and substantial justice. For example, Tempur Sealy markets and sells products in 

Michigan, including the products accused of patent infringement and products that 

result from breach of confidentiality agreements with Reverie. Tempur Sealy also 

operates or does substantial business with “elite” retailers and “authorized” 

retailers who sell Tempur Sealy bedding products in Michigan, including products 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 3 of 27 Pg ID 3
-4- 

ME1 20463437v.5

alleged to infringe Reverie’s patents. Tempur Sealy and Tempur Management 

have also entered into contracts with Reverie. 

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 

1400(b). Tempur Sealy and Tempur Management have committed, and are 

continuing to commit, acts of patent infringement and breach of contract in this 

District; Tempur Sealy maintains regular business operations in this District; and 

Tempur Sealy is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. 

REVERIE’S PATENTS

10. This action arises out of Defendants’ infringement of seven patents 

owned by Reverie. 

11. On March 25, 2014, United States Patent No. 8,682,457 (“the ‘457 

Patent”), entitled “Wireless Control of an Adjustable Bed,” was duly and legally 

issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘457 Patent has 

been duly and legally assigned to Reverie. A true and correct copy of the ‘457 

Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 

12. On December 9, 2014, United States Patent No. 8,909,357 (“the ‘357 

Patent”), entitled “System for Tandem Bed Communication,” was duly and legally 

issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘357 Patent has 

been duly and legally assigned to Reverie. A true and correct copy of the ‘357 

Patent is attached as Exhibit B. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 4 of 27 Pg ID 4
-5- 

ME1 20463437v.5

13. On October 25, 2011, United States Patent No. 8,046,116 (“the ‘116 

Patent”), entitled “Controlling an Adjustable Bed and a Second System With a 

Modular Controller,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. The ‘116 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Reverie. 

A true and correct copy of the ‘116 Patent is attached as Exhibit C. 

14. On October 22, 2013, United States Patent No. 8,565,934 (“the ‘934 

Patent”), entitled “Touch Screen Control of an Adjustable Bed,” was duly and 

legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘934 Patent 

has been duly and legally assigned to Reverie. A true and correct copy of the ‘934 

Patent is attached as Exhibit D. 

15. On June 2, 2015, United States Patent No. 9,044,366 (“the ‘366 

Patent”), entitled “Adjustable Mattress Support Facility,” was duly and legally 

issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘366 Patent has 

been duly and legally assigned to Reverie. A true and correct copy of the ‘366 

Patent is attached as Exhibit E. 

16. On June 2, 2015, United States Patent No. 8,869,328 (“the ‘328 

Patent”), entitled “System of Two-Way Communication in an Adjustable Bed with 

Memory,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. The ‘328 Patent has been duly and legally assigned to Reverie. A true and 

correct copy of the ‘328 Patent is attached as Exhibit F. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 5 of 27 Pg ID 5
-6- 

ME1 20463437v.5

17. On January 6, 2015, United States Design Patent No. D720,553 (“the 

D553 Patent”), entitled “Adjustable Bed,” was duly and legally issued by the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office. The D533 Patent has been duly and 

legally assigned to Reverie. A true and correct copy of the D553 Patent is attached 

as Exhibit G. 

18. Reverie is the owner of the ‘457, ‘116, ‘357, ‘934, ‘366, ‘328, and 

D553 Patents (“Reverie Patents”) with the full and exclusive right to bring suit to 

enforce the Reverie Patents. 

19. The Reverie Patents are presumed to be valid and enforceable under 

35 U.S.C. § 282. 

20. Tempur Sealy and Tempur Management have actual and constructive 

knowledge of the Reverie Patents. Reverie marks its products embodying the 

patented features in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), thus giving Defendants 

constructive notice. In addition, Reverie gave actual notice to Defendants in 

communications with Defendants, including but not limited to an email dated June 

3, 2015, and a meeting at Tempur Sealy’s offices in Kentucky on June 4, 2015. 

REVERIE’S PATENTED PRODUCTS 

21. Reverie manufactures and sells a number of bedding products, 

including mattresses, foundations, and adjustable beds that embody one or more 

inventions claimed in Reverie’s numerous patents. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 6 of 27 Pg ID 6
-7- 

ME1 20463437v.5

22. Among the Reverie products that embody Reverie’s patented 

technology are, for example, the Deluxe, Reverie 3ETM, Reverie 5DTM, Reverie 

7STM, Reverie 8QTM, and the Serta Pivot, as well as several others. Exemplary 

patented products are depicted below. 

23. Reverie’s bedding products compete in the marketplace with Tempur 

Sealy’s bedding products, including those products now accused of infringement 

and especially adjustable bedding products. 

THE ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

24. Defendants design, make, import, use, sell, and/or offer for sale a 

wide range of bedding products, including adjustable bed products, foundations, 

remote controls, and adjustable bed software, including but not limited to the 

TEMPUR-Ergo Premier, TEMPUR-Ergo Grand, Ergo Link, TEMPUR-Ergo 

Grand Wireless Remote, TEMPUR-Ergo Premier Wireless Remote, TEMPURErgo Smart Control App, TEMPUR-Up Foundation, TEMPUR-Ergo Plus 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 7 of 27 Pg ID 7
-8- 

ME1 20463437v.5

Adjustable Base, Sealy Reflexion Up Foundation and other adjustable bed products 

and remote controls that incorporate similar features and functionality. 

25. As alleged herein, Defendants have engaged in actions that directly 

and indirectly infringe the Reverie Patents. 

26. For one or more of the Reverie Patents, Defendants have directly 

infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, offering to sell, 

and/or importing infringing products into the United States. 

27. For one or more of the Reverie Patents, Defendants are actively 

inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by encouraging acts of direct 

infringement, when Defendants know (or believe there is a high probability, but 

are taking deliberate steps to avoid knowing) that they are inducing direct 

infringement. Defendants’ acts of encouragement include but are not limited to (a) 

making, selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or encouraging the use of Tempur 

Sealy adjustable beds, and (b) encouraging and/or instructing third parties on how 

to download and use the TEMPUR-Ergo Smart Control App on touch screen 

devices operating the Apple iOS and Android operating systems. 

28. For one or more of the Reverie Patents, Defendants have 

contributorily infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by selling or offering to sell 

within, or importing into, the United States a component of a patented machine, 

manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 8 of 27 Pg ID 8
-9- 

ME1 20463437v.5

practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the claimed 

invention(s), knowing the same to be specially made or adapted for an infringing 

use, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial 

noninfringing use. 

29. Exemplary claim charts showing infringement by representative 

products of one or more representative claims of each of the Reverie Patents are 

attached as Exhibit H. These claim charts are based on preliminary analysis and 

may be amended or supplemented after further investigation and discovery in this 

action. The claim charts are for notice purposes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12. 

30. In addition, as the side-by-side comparison shown below reveals, 

Defendants have infringed Reverie’s patented adjustable bed base design (subject 

of the D533 Patent) through their manufacture, use, offers to sell, and sale of 

various products, including the Tempur-Ergo Plus Adjustable Base depicted below. 

D553 Patent Tempur-Ergo Plus Adjustable Base

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 9 of 27 Pg ID 9
-10- 

ME1 20463437v.5

31. As seen in the allegations below, during meetings with Reverie in 

which the parties were, ostensibly, working toward a joint development 

relationship or other business relationship, Reverie showed Defendants its 

innovative products and prototypes under development and told Defendants about 

its patents and pending patent applications. Tempur Sealy and Tempur 

Management learned about Reverie’s innovations in adjustable bed technology 

and, despite entering into strict non-disclosure/confidentiality agreements, used the 

proprietary and confidential information they had learned from Reverie to 

introduce competing products based on the patented technology that Reverie 

developed. 

BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATIONS

32. From about 2006 through about late 2013 or early 2014, Reverie and 

Tempur Sealy maintained a business relationship. During this time, Reverie 

supplied Tempur Sealy with various products, components, parts, and technology. 

During the course of this business relationship, Tempur-Pedic became aware of 

Reverie’s innovative products, capabilities, confidential information, technical 

specifications and designs, and burgeoning patent portfolio. 

33. In or around 2005, Martin Rawls-Meehan, Chief Executive Officer of 

Reverie and inventor of the Reverie Patents, contacted Tempur Sealy about the 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 10 of 27 Pg ID 10
-11- 

ME1 20463437v.5

possibility of entering a business arrangement under which Reverie would supply 

components to Tempur Sealy and assist in developing adjustable bed foundations. 

34. In or around 2009, the parties entered into a confidentiality agreement, 

and Reverie shared with Defendants confidential information under that 

agreement. On or around December 14, 2012, Reverie and Tempur Sealy entered 

into a second confidentiality agreement, entitled “Mutual Confidential Disclosure 

Agreement” (“2012 MCDA”). The 2012 MCDA obliges the parties to not use or 

disclose confidential information, including proprietary inventions and designs, 

proprietary technical data, patent applications, know-how, technical and 

engineering data, drawings, schematics, blueprints and trade secrets. Furthermore, 

the 2012 MCDA prohibited the parties from copying, reproducing, reverse 

engineering, or designing around products and confidential information disclosed 

during the relationship. A true and correct copy of the 2012 MCDA is attached as 

Exhibit I. 

35. Also, on or around December 14, 2012, Reverie and Tempur Sealy’s 

Tempur Management subsidiary entered into a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) related to 

Reverie’s manufacturing and supplying to Tempur Sealy new adjustable 

foundations. The LOI stated that the parties’ obligations under the 2012 Mutual 

Confidentiality Agreement would survive following the conclusion of negotiations 

between the parties. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 11 of 27 Pg ID 11
-12- 

ME1 20463437v.5

36. During the course of the relationship with Tempur Sealy, and under 

the confidentiality agreements, Mr. Rawls-Meehan and other Reverie employees 

discussed with Tempur Sealy confidential information related to designs, concepts, 

manufacturing details, and costs associated with adjustable bed technology. For 

example, Mr. Rawls-Meehan discussed with Tempur Sealy a new product concept 

for a “head-up only” foundation. Mr. Rawls-Meehan offered that Reverie would 

manufacture and supply said product to Tempur Sealy. 

37. Reverie also discussed with Defendants other new product concepts 

for various adjustable bed related technologies, including, for example, wireless 

remote controls, touchscreen remote controls, and smartphone application remote 

controls. Indeed, Reverie shared with Tempur Sealy confidential presentations 

showing touch screen applications (e.g., for use with Apple iPhones, iPads, iPods, 

Android mobile devices, and similar equipment) for controlling adjustable beds, 

and Tempur Sealy later introduced such products. The communications included 

manufacturing details and schematics for such products. Mr. Rawls-Meehan 

offered that Reverie would manufacture and supply such products and/or software 

to Tempur Sealy. 

38. Reverie also shared proprietary designs and schematics for adjustable 

bed foundations, cost and supplier information, and other confidential business and 

technical information that gave Defendants a competitive advantage. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 12 of 27 Pg ID 12
-13- 

ME1 20463437v.5

39. As one example, Reverie shared with Tempur Sealy and Tempur 

Management in late 2012 or early 2013, under the confidentiality obligations of the 

parties’ agreements, design schematics and 3-D models for a new “lift arm” for use 

in adjustable bed foundations. Reverie offered to manufacture the component for 

Tempur Sealy. Tempur Sealy did not accept the offer, but now includes a lift arm 

of the same design in its products. 

40. In late 2013 or early 2014, Tempur Sealy terminated its business 

relationship with Reverie. 

41. On information and belief, Defendants improperly reverse engineered 

and/or copied product concepts, designs, schematics, and other confidential 

information that Reverie disclosed in connection with the confidentiality 

agreements. On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, and 

sell products that copy or are made according to Reverie’s products, product 

concepts, and/or confidential designs and processes. 

42. On information and belief, Tempur Sealy improperly disclosed 

Reverie’s confidential information to its suppliers in violation of the confidentiality 

agreements. On information and belief, Tempur Sealy’s suppliers used Reverie’s 

confidential information to manufacture components, bed foundations, and the like 

for Tempur Sealy. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 13 of 27 Pg ID 13
-14- 

ME1 20463437v.5

COUNT ONE

Infringement of the ‘457 Patent

43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-42 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

44. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, literally and/or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘457 Patent, including 

but not limited to representative Claim 20 (as exemplified in the attached 

preliminary claim chart), directly and/or indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, 

by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed 

products—including but not limited to the Tempur Ergo Premier and Tempur-Ergo 

Grand—in the United States (and/or by contributing to and/or inducing these acts). 

45. Defendants have actual and constructive notice of the ‘457 Patent at 

least by virtue of communications between Defendants and Reverie and because 

Reverie has marked its products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 

46. On information and belief, Reverie alleges that Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘457 Patent has been and continues to be intentional and 

willful. As alleged above, Reverie disclosed its patents and technology to 

Defendants under confidentiality obligations but Defendants misappropriated the 

technology and their knowledge of Reverie’s patents to compete with Reverie. At 

the very least, and upon information and belief, Defendants introduced its 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 14 of 27 Pg ID 14
-15- 

ME1 20463437v.5

competing products with reckless indifference as to whether the products infringed 

Reverie’s patents. 

47. Reverie has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ infringement of the ‘457 Patent. 

48. Reverie will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘457 Patent. Reverie has no adequate remedy at law and is 

entitled to an injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement of the ‘457 

Patent. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their infringement. 

COUNT TWO

Infringement of the ‘357 Patent

49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-48 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

50. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, literally and/or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘357 Patent, including 

but not limited to representative Claim 14 (as exemplified in the attached 

preliminary claim chart), directly and/or indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, 

by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed 

products—including but not limited to the Tempur Ergo Premier and Tempur-Ergo 

Grand—in the United States (and/or by contributing to and/or inducing these acts). 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 15 of 27 Pg ID 15
-16- 

ME1 20463437v.5

51. Defendants have actual and constructive notice of the ‘357 Patent at 

least by virtue of communications between Defendants and Reverie and because 

Reverie has marked its products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 

52. On information and belief, Reverie alleges that Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘357 Patent has been and continues to be intentional and 

willful. 

53. Reverie has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ infringement of the ‘357 Patent. 

54. Reverie will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘357 Patent. Reverie has no adequate remedy at law and is 

entitled to an injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement of the ‘357 

Patent. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their infringement. 

COUNT THREE

Infringement of the ‘116 Patent

55. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-54 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

56. Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘116 Patent, including 

but not limited to representative Claim 33 (as exemplified in the attached 

preliminary claim chart), directly and/or indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, 

by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 16 of 27 Pg ID 16
-17- 

ME1 20463437v.5

products—including but not limited to the Tempur Ergo Premier and Tempur-Ergo 

Grand—in the United States (and/or by contributing to and/or inducing these acts). 

57. Defendants have actual and constructive notice of the ‘116 Patent at 

least by virtue of communications between Defendants and Reverie and because 

Reverie has marked its products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 

58. On information and belief, Reverie alleges that Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘116 Patent has been and continues to be intentional and 

willful. 

59. Reverie has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ infringement of the ‘116 Patent. 

60. Reverie will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘116 Patent. Reverie has no adequate remedy at law and is 

entitled to an injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement of the ‘116 

Patent. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their infringement. 

COUNT FOUR

Infringement of the ‘934 Patent

61. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-60 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

62. Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘934 Patent, including 

but not limited to representative Claim 1 (as exemplified in the attached 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 17 of 27 Pg ID 17
-18- 

ME1 20463437v.5

preliminary claim chart), directly and/or indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, 

by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed 

products—including but not limited to the Tempur Ergo Premier and Tempur-Ergo 

Grand—in the United States (and/or by contributing to and/or inducing these acts). 

63. Defendants have actual and constructive notice of the ‘934 Patent at 

least by virtue of communications between Defendants and Reverie and because 

Reverie has marked its products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 

64. On information and belief, Defendants’ actions as alleged herein have 

actively induced and/or are continuing to actively induce infringement of the ‘934 

Patent by encouraging acts of direct infringement, and Defendants know (or 

believe there is a high probability, but are taking deliberate steps to avoid 

knowing) that they are inducing direct infringement by (a) making, using, selling, 

offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed products—including but not 

limited to the Tempur Ergo Premier and Tempur-Ergo Grand and (b) selling, 

supplying, encouraging, supporting, providing for download, and instructing users 

on how to install and use the Tempur-Ergo Smart Control App for use on Apple 

iOS and Android touch screen devices, with the intent that these products be used 

by such third party users and entities to infringe the ‘934 Patent. 

65. For example, Defendants’ product literature for the Tempur-Ergo 

Premier and Tempur-Ergo Grand products, including the product manuals, 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 18 of 27 Pg ID 18
-19- 

ME1 20463437v.5

encourages and instructs Tempur Sealy’s users on how to download and configure 

the Tempur-Ergo Smart Control App for use on touch screen devices. Defendants 

are therefore aware that their customers and other third parties are infringing the 

‘934 Patent. 

66. On information and belief, Reverie alleges that Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘934 Patent has been and continues to be intentional and 

willful. 

67. Reverie has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ infringement of the ‘934 Patent. 

68. Reverie will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘934 Patent. Reverie has no adequate remedy at law and is 

entitled to an injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement of the ‘934 

Patent. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their infringement. 

COUNT FIVE

Infringement of the ‘366 Patent

69. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-68 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

70. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, literally and/or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘366 Patent, including 

but not limited to representative Claim 14 (as exemplified in the attached 

preliminary claim chart), directly and/or indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 19 of 27 Pg ID 19
-20- 

ME1 20463437v.5

by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed 

products—including but not limited to the Tempur Up Foundation and Sealy 

Reflexion Up Foundation—in the United States (and/or by contributing to and/or 

inducing these acts). 

71. Defendants have actual and constructive notice of the ‘366 Patent at 

least by virtue of communications between Defendants and Reverie and because 

Reverie has marked its products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 

72. On information and belief, Reverie alleges that Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘366 Patent has been and continues to be intentional and 

willful. 

73. Reverie has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ infringement of the ‘366 Patent. 

74. Reverie will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘366 Patent. Reverie has no adequate remedy at law and is 

entitled to an injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement of the ‘366 

Patent. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their infringement. 

COUNT SIX

Infringement of the ‘328 Patent

75. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-74 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 20 of 27 Pg ID 20
-21- 

ME1 20463437v.5

76. Defendants have infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘328 Patent, including 

but not limited to representative Claim 1 (as exemplified in the attached 

preliminary claim chart), directly and/or indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, 

by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed 

products—including but not limited to the Tempur Ergo Premier and Tempur-Ergo 

Grand—in the United States (and/or by contributing to and/or inducing these acts). 

77. Defendants have actual and constructive notice of the ‘328 Patent at 

least by virtue of communications between Defendants and Reverie and because 

Reverie has marked its products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 

78. On information and belief, Defendants’ actions as alleged herein have 

actively induced and/or are continuing to actively induce infringement of the ‘328 

Patent by encouraging acts of direct infringement, and Defendants know (or 

believe there is a high probability, but are taking deliberate steps to avoid 

knowing) that they are inducing direct infringement by (a) making, using, selling, 

offering to sell and/or importing adjustable bed products—including but not 

limited to the Tempur Ergo Premier and Tempur-Ergo Grand and (b) selling, 

supplying, encouraging, supporting, providing for download, and instructing users 

on how to install and use the Tempur-Ergo Smart Control App for use on Apple 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 21 of 27 Pg ID 21
-22- 

ME1 20463437v.5

iOS and Android touch screen devices, with the intent that these products be used 

by such third party users and entities to infringe the ‘328 Patent. 

79. For example, Defendants’ product literature for the Tempur-Ergo 

Premier and Tempur-Ergo Grand products, including the product manuals, 

encourages and instructs Tempur Sealy’s users on how to download and configure 

the Tempur-Ergo Smart Control App for use on touch screen devices. Defendants 

are therefore aware that their customers and other third parties are infringing the 

‘328 Patent. 

80. On information and belief, Reverie alleges that Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘328 Patent has been and continues to be intentional and 

willful. 

81. Reverie has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ infringement of the ‘328 Patent. 

82. Reverie will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants’ 

infringement of the ‘328 Patent. Reverie has no adequate remedy at law and is 

entitled to an injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement of the ‘328 

Patent. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their infringement. 

COUNT SEVEN

Infringement of the D553 Patent

83. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-82 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 22 of 27 Pg ID 22
-23- 

ME1 20463437v.5

84. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, literally and/or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, the claim of the D553 Patent, directly and/or 

indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to 

sell and/or importing adjustable bed products—including but not limited to the 

Tempur-Ergo Plus Adjustable Base—in the United States (and/or by contributing 

to and/or inducing these acts). 

85. Defendants have actual and constructive notice of the D553 Patent at 

least by virtue of communications between Defendants and Reverie and because 

Reverie has marked its products in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). 

86. On information and belief, Reverie alleges that Defendants’ 

infringement of the D553 Patent has been and continues to be intentional and 

willful. 

87. Reverie has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of 

Defendants’ infringement of the D553 Patent. 

88. Reverie will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm from Defendants’ 

infringement of the D553 Patent. Reverie has no adequate remedy at law and is 

entitled to an injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement of the D553 

Patent. Unless enjoined, Defendants will continue their infringement. 

COUNT EIGHT

Breach of Confidentiality Agreements

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 23 of 27 Pg ID 23
-24- 

ME1 20463437v.5

89. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-88 

above as if fully set forth herein. 

90. Pursuant to the terms of the 2009 and 2012 confidentiality agreements 

referenced above, Reverie provided Tempur Sealy with confidential information, 

including technical specifications, product designs, manufacturing and cost 

information, and product concepts regarding Reverie’s adjustable bed technology, 

including, for example, foundations, software, remote controls, and components. 

91. Pursuant to the terms of the confidentiality agreements, Tempur Sealy 

was required to hold Reverie’s confidential information in confidence, not to use it, 

or disclose it. For example, the 2012 MCDA prohibited the parties from copying, 

reproducing, reverse engineering, or designing around products and confidential 

information disclosed following the agreement. 

92. Under the LOI, the same terms of the 2012 MCDA were applied to 

Tempur Management. 

93. Reverie met all of its obligations under the agreements. 

94. Defendants, in breach of the agreements, used the information 

provided by Reverie for their own benefit for purposes directly prohibited by the 

terms of the agreements. Specifically, Defendants used Reverie’s confidential 

information to create their own products nearly identical to Reverie’s, including, 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 24 of 27 Pg ID 24
-25- 

ME1 20463437v.5

for example, remote controls, remote control applications and software, controllers, 

and adjustable bed foundations. 

DAMAGES

95. Reverie has suffered, is suffering, and unless restrained by the Court, 

will continue to suffer injury to its business and property rights as a result of 

Tempur Sealy’s patent infringement, for which it is entitled to damages pursuant to 

35 U.S.C. §§ 284-285, 289 in an amount to be proven at trial. 

96. Reverie has suffered, is suffering, and unless restrained by the Court, 

will continue to suffer injury to its business and property rights as a result of 

Tempur Sealy’s breach of contract, for which it is entitled to damages. 

INJUNCTION

97. Reverie has suffered, is suffering, and unless restrained by the Court, 

will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at 

law, as a result of Tempur Sealy’s patent infringement, for which it is entitled to 

permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

98. Likewise, Reverie has suffered, is suffering, and unless restrained by 

the Court, will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate 

remedy at law, as a result of Tempur Sealy’s breach of contract, for which it is 

entitled to permanent injunctive relief. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 25 of 27 Pg ID 25
-26- 

ME1 20463437v.5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Reverie requests that the Court enter judgment in 

its favor and against Defendants as follows: 

a. Declare that Defendants have infringed one or more claims of the 

Reverie Patents; 

b. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Tempur 

Sealy, its subsidiaries, segments, divisions, agents, employees, and all 

parties who are in privity with Tempur Sealy and/or any of the 

foregoing from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or 

inducing infringement of one or more of the Reverie Patents in Suit, 

and for all further proper injunctive relief; 

c. Award to Reverie damages, including treble damages based on any 

finding of willfulness, for Defendants’ infringement, with prejudgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284-

285; 

d. Award to Reverie Defendants’ total profit for design patent 

infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289; 

e. Find this an exceptional case and award fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285; 

f. Award to Reverie damages for Defendants’ breach of the 

confidentiality agreements, and; 

g. Grant any and all such further relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) and Local Rule 9.1, Plaintiff Reverie 

demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 26 of 27 Pg ID 26
-27- 

ME1 20463437v.5

 MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 ASCION, LLC 

 By: s/David Honigman 

 DAVE HONIGMAN (Mich. P33146) 

 dhonigman@manteselaw.com 

 KRISTA M. HOSMER (Mich. P68939) 

 khosmer@manteselaw.com 

 MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.

 1361 E. Big Beaver Rd. 

 Troy, MI 48083 

 Telephone 248.457.9200 

 Facsimile 248.457.9201 

 ERIK PAUL BELT (Mass. BBO #558620) 

 ebelt@mccarter.com 

 BRIAN J. LARIVEE (Mass. BBO #673928) 

 blarivee@mccarter.com

 applications for admission forthcoming 

 MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

 265 Franklin Street 

 Boston, MA 02110-3113 

 Telephone 617.449.6500 

 Facsimile 617.607.9200 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 ASCION, LLC, d/b/a Reverie 

Date: June 5, 2015 

2:15-cv-12067-DPH-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/05/15 Pg 27 of 27 Pg ID 27