the evidence supports by clear and convincing evidence that JEMM acted despite an objectively high likelihood that it was infringing
Cumming, GA (PRWEB) April 26, 2012
In a ruling issued on January 30, 2012, by Judge William S. Duffey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Mattress Safe, Inc. scored a win in its efforts to enforce its patent rights against Just Encase My Mattress, Inc. (“JEMM”). Mattress Safe had filed its original suit case 1:11-cv-02492-WSD against JEMM on July 28, 2011, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 7,849,543, entitled, “Encasement Systems”. One embodiment covered by the claims of Mattress Safe’s patent is a bedding encasement with a unique feature of securing a zipper with a special closure mechanism in order to prevent the ingress or egress of contaminants such as, for example, bed bugs.
Based on the factual allegations in Mattress Safe’s Complaint and the evidence presented by Mattress Safe at the hearing, the Court concluded that a sufficient basis exists to hold that, "JEMM has infringed” Mattress Safe’s Patent. The judge also found the case to be “exceptional” and the infringement willful, noting, “the evidence supports by clear and convincing evidence that JEMM acted despite an objectively high likelihood that it was infringing the ‘543 Patent. The mattress encasement products that JEMM manufactured, imported, offered to sell, and sold incorporated nearly identical copies of the zipper-closure mechanisms described and pictured” in Mattress Safe’s Patent and that “the evidence presented . . . in this case supports that JEMM engaged in a course of bad faith conduct.”
“We believe the court reached the correct conclusion that JEMM is infringing Mattress Safe’s valuable patented technology and that Mattress Safe should be compensated for that infringement,” said Will Poston, President and CEO of Mattress Safe. “This judgment validates Mattress Safe’s claims against JEMM, which will also aid Mattress Safe in enforcing its patent rights against any other infringers.”
On a motion for default judgment, the court ruled in Mattress Safe’s favor, awarding Mattress Safe a judgment of its attorneys’ fees and expenses against JEMM. Additionally, the court further ordered that JEMM “and its affiliates, agents, servants, employees, officers, and directors, or anyone acting in privity with or on behalf of [JEMM], [be] permanently enjoined and restrained from infringing, contributing to the infringement of, or inducing the infringement of Mattress Safe’s patent, including, but not limited to, the manufacture, importation, use, sale and/or offer for sale of . . . mattress protectors, box spring protectors, and other encasement products with the ‘zipsafe’ closure mechanism sold under the name ‘UltraGuard.’”
To learn more about Mattress Safe's(R) specialized products please visit http://www.mattresssafe.com.