Back to Blog
ITCSeptember 9, 2026·337-TA-1524·SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FILED

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 (titled First Public Supplement to Complaint) is filed by Ultra-Mek, Inc., Leggett & Platt, Inc. and L&P Property Management Company against Living Style, Henglin and Carya Smart entities. It alleges that powered rocker-recliner and glider-recliner mechanisms and seating units infringe the '348, '693, '165 and '168 Patents.

Why It Matters

The filing seeks a Section 337 investigation into imported powered motion-furniture mechanisms and finished seating units sold under the Barcalounger and COLAMY brands. Complainants ask for limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against each proposed respondent, plus a bond during the Presidential review period. Because the Carya Smart mechanisms are alleged to be incorporated into other respondents' chairs, relief could reach both component and finished-product supply chains.

Full Summary

This supplemental complaint (titled First Public Supplement to Complaint) is filed by Ultra-Mek, Inc., Leggett & Platt, Inc. and L&P Property Management Company against Living Style, Henglin and Carya Smart entities. It alleges that powered rocker-recliner and glider-recliner mechanisms and seating units infringe the '348, '693, '165 and '168 Patents. The filing seeks a Section 337 investigation into imported powered motion-furniture mechanisms and finished seating units sold under the Barcalounger and COLAMY brands. Complainants ask for limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against each proposed respondent, plus a bond during the Presidential review period. Because the Carya Smart mechanisms are alleged to be incorporated into other respondents' chairs, relief could reach both component and finished-product supply chains. Complainants: Ultra-Mek (owner of the '348 and '693 Patents) and L&P Property Management (owner of the '165 and '168 Patents), with Leggett & Platt, Inc. as licensee. Proposed respondents: Living Style entities including True Innovations, the Henglin entities including Nanjing Hengning, Zhejiang Hengjian, Colamy, Aurora Maison and Aerisnexus, and Jiangsu Carya Smart. Accused products: Carya Smart 5115 rocker and 7115 glider mechanisms and seating units containing them, such as Barcalounger and COLAMY chairs, alleged to infringe literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, with inducement and contributory infringement also alleged. Asserted claims: '348 Patent claims 1-4, 6-9; '693 Patent claims 1-7, 11-14; '165 Patent claims 1-7, 15-18; '168 Patent claims 1-7, 15-18. Domestic industry: Ultra-Mek 7800 and 7900 series and L&P 5151 and 5181 mechanisms and related seating units, relying on US manufacturing, labor, capital and R&D under Section 337(a)(3)(A), (B) and (C). Relief sought: limited exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, and a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period.

Key Points

  • Complainants: Ultra-Mek (owner of the '348 and '693 Patents) and L&P Property Management (owner of the '165 and '168 Patents), with Leggett & Platt, Inc. as licensee.
  • Proposed respondents: Living Style entities including True Innovations, the Henglin entities including Nanjing Hengning, Zhejiang Hengjian, Colamy, Aurora Maison and Aerisnexus, and Jiangsu Carya Smart.
  • Accused products: Carya Smart 5115 rocker and 7115 glider mechanisms and seating units containing them, such as Barcalounger and COLAMY chairs, alleged to infringe literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, with inducement and contributory infringement also alleged.
  • Asserted claims: '348 Patent claims 1-4, 6-9; '693 Patent claims 1-7, 11-14; '165 Patent claims 1-7, 15-18; '168 Patent claims 1-7, 15-18.
  • Domestic industry: Ultra-Mek 7800 and 7900 series and L&P 5151 and 5181 mechanisms and related seating units, relying on US manufacturing, labor, capital and R&D under Section 337(a)(3)(A), (B) and (C).
  • Relief sought: limited exclusion orders, cease and desist orders, and a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period.
infringementdomestic industryexclusion ordercease & desistamended complaint

Related Documents

More on this topic

New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity