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
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.
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)
- 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
- Supplemental Complaint · 337-TA-1524 · September 10, 2026Certain Powered Rocker-Recliner and Glider-Recliner Mechanisms and Seating Units Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1524 (Violation)
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