Certain Powered Rocker-Recliner and Glider-Recliner Mechanisms and Seating Units Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1524 (Violation)
U.S. International Trade Commission
Holding
This supplemental complaint, a redline incorporating a second supplement, restates the Section 337 complaint of Ultra-Mek, Inc., Leggett & Platt, Inc., and L&P Property Management Company against Living Style, the Henglin Respondents, and Carya Smart. It alleges infringement of the '348, '693, '165, and '168 Patents by powered rocker-recliner and glider-recliner mechanisms and seating units.
Why It Matters
The filing targets imported powered recliner mechanisms and finished seating units, including Barcalounger- and COLAMY-branded products built with Carya Smart mechanisms. Complainants seek permanent limited exclusion orders, cease-and-desist orders, and a bond during Presidential review. The second supplement appears to add or update respondents and infringement allegations, but the redline does not show what changed.
Full Summary
Key Points
- Complainants: Ultra-Mek (owner of the '348 and '693 Patents) and Leggett & Platt and L&P Property Management Company (owner of the '165 and '168 Patents).
- Proposed respondents: Living Style entities, the Henglin entities (including Nanjing Hengning, Zhejiang Hengjian, Colamy, Aurora Maison, and Aerisnexus), and Jiangsu Carya Smart.
- Accused products: Carya Smart 5115 powered-rocker and 7115 powered-glider mechanisms and seating units incorporating them, such as Barcalounger and COLAMY recliners.
- Infringement is alleged literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, with direct infringement under 271(a), inducement under 271(b), and contributory infringement by Carya Smart.
- Domestic industry is alleged under Section 337(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C), based on Ultra-Mek's North Carolina manufacturing and L&P's U.S. facilities, with the 7800/7900-series and Delta, CZ, BEST, and EZ-Pro lines as domestic industry products.
- Relief requested: institution of an investigation, a violation finding, permanent limited exclusion orders, cease-and-desist orders, and a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period.
Related Documents
- Complaint · 337-TA-1524 · August 21, 2026Certain Powered Rocker-Recliner and Glider-Recliner Mechanisms and Seating Units Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1524 (Violation)
- Supplemental Complaint · 337-TA-1524 · September 9, 2026Certain Powered Rocker-Recliner and Glider-Recliner Mechanisms and Seating Units Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1524 (Violation)
- Notice of Investigation · 337-TA-1524 · September 23, 2026Certain Powered Rocker-Recliner and Glider-Recliner Mechanisms and Seating Units Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1524
New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity
- ITC · Oct. 13, 2026Certain Extrusion-Coated Magnet Wire; Inv. No. 337-TA-3940 (Violation)
- ITC · Oct. 12, 2026Certain Foundry Coke; Inv. No. 337-TA-1512 (Violation)
- ITC · Oct. 9, 2026Certain Vertical Power Delivery Systems, Components Thereof, and Computing Systems Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1526
- ITC · Oct. 9, 2026Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof I; Inv. No. 337-TA-1451 (Violation)
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 5, 2026O'Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC