Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CAP EXPORT, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee
ABRAHAM AMOUYAL,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellee
4MODA CORP.,
Third-Party Defendant
v.
ZINUS, INC.,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff/Counterclaimant-Appel-
lant
DOES, 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendant
______________________
2021-2159
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:16-cv-00371-JWH-
MRW, Judge John W. Holcomb.
______________________
Decided: September 22, 2022
______________________
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 1 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 2
D AVID BEITCHMAN, Beitchman & Zekian, PC, Encino,
CA, argued for Cap Export, LLC, Abraham Amouyal. Also
represented by MILORD A. K ESHISHIAN, Milord & Associ-
ates, PC, Los Angeles, CA.
MATTHEW WOLF , Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for Zinus, Inc. Also represented
by J IN-SUK P ARK; RYAN M. N ISHIMOTO, Los Angeles, CA.
______________________
Before D YK, T ARANTO, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
STOLL , Circuit Judge.
This case comes to us on appeal for a third time. Zinus,
Inc. appeals the United States District Court for the Cen-
tral District of California’s summary judgment of invalidity
under the on-sale bar, 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), (b)(1). Be-
cause there are material factual disputes regarding
whether the on-sale product anticipates the asserted
claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,931,123, we vacate the district
court’s summary judgment and remand.
BACKGROUND
Zinus is the current assignee of the ’123 patent, which
is directed to “[a]n assemblable mattress support [that] can
be shipped with all of its components compactly packed
into the headboard.” ’123 patent, Abstract. Claim 1 is rep-
resentative:
1. A mattress support comprising:
a longitudinal bar with a first connector and a sec-
ond connector;
a headboard with a compartment and a third con-
nector; and
a footboard with a fourth connector, wherein the
first connector is adapted to attach to the third con-
nector, wherein the second connector is adapted to
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 2 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 3
attach to the fourth connector, wherein legs are at-
tached to a bottom side of the footboard, wherein
the longitudinal bar and the footboard fit inside the
compartment of the headboard, wherein the first
connector is directly connected to the third con-
nector, and the second connector is directly con-
nected to the fourth connector in an assembled
state of the mattress support, wherein the first con-
nector is not connected to the third connector, and
the second connector is not connected to the fourth
connector in a compact state of the mattress sup-
port, and wherein the longitudinal bar and the
footboard are contained inside the compartment in
the compact state of the mattress support.
Id. at col. 6 ll. 21–40 (emphasis added to highlight the dis-
puted limitation on appeal).
The protracted history of this case goes back to at least
2016, when Cap Export, LLC filed a declaratory judgment
action against Zinus, alleging that the ’123 patent claims
are invalid and not infringed. Zinus counterclaimed, alleg-
ing (among various state law counterclaims) that Cap Ex-
port infringed the ’123 patent claims.
After two appeals to this court and multiple remands
to the district court, Cap Export filed a motion for summary
judgment of invalidity under the on-sale bar. Cap Export’s
invalidity theory is based on the sale of a particular bed-in-
a-box product—the “Mersin” bed—sold by third party
Woody Furniture to Zinus’s then-president Colin Lawrie
before the ’123 patent’s critical date. Although disputed at
the district court, Zinus does not dispute on appeal that
this sale was a commercial sale or that the bed was ready
for patenting. Instead, the crux of the parties’ dispute be-
fore the district court, as relevant on appeal, was whether
the assembly instructions that accompanied the Mersin
bed sold to Mr. Lawrie, which on their face indicate that
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 3 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 4
they were for the “Fusion” bed, also applied to the Mersin
bed.
Zinus presented testimony suggesting the Fusion bed
instructions might have been mistakenly included in the
Mersin bed box. Specifically, in connection with its brief
opposing summary judgment, Zinus provided a declaration
from its former Director of Marketing, Cyndi Hunting. As
part of her job, Ms. Hunting stated she “was responsible for
monitoring upholstered platform bed offerings of the com-
petition in the market, and specifically on the Internet.”
J.A. 9054 (Hunting Decl. ¶ 5). Based on her experience
working in the industry, Ms. Hunting explained that “it is
not uncommon for assembly instructions for one version of
a bed type to be put into the shipping boxes for another
version of the bed type,” due to “a mistake, sloppiness, or a
failure to update/correct the assembly instructions.”
J.A. 9060 (Hunting Decl. ¶ 27).
There is no dispute on appeal that the product dis-
closed in the Fusion bed assembly instructions would sat-
isfy every element of claim 1. As shown in step 6 of the
assembly instructions (reproduced below), a tab on a longi-
tudinal bar 4 inserts into a bracket on the footboard (shown
between 1 and 2). The parties dispute, however, whether
the Mersin bed is constructed in the same way as the Fu-
sion bed such that it satisfies every element of that claim—
specifically, whether it has a “longitudinal bar” with a “sec-
ond connector” that is “adapted to attach” to a “fourth con-
nector” on the “footboard.” ’123 patent col. 6 ll. 21–40.
Zinus presented evidence that it alleged shows that the as-
sold Mersin bed does not include the connector shown in
step 6 of the assembly instructions, including a photo of the
as-sold Mersin bed taken from an inspection report. Step
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 4 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 5
6 of the instructions and the photo are reproduced side-by-
side below:
J.A. 8424 (Fusion assembly instructions, excerpted);
J.A. 8434 (photo of Mersin bed from inspection report, ex-
cerpted).
In her declaration on behalf of Zinus, Ms. Hunting dis-
cussed the Fusion bed assembly instructions, explaining
that “the end of the rail (4) appears to have a downward
oriented tab” that “appears to be fashioned to engage a
bracket” located between (1) and (2). J.A. 9059–60 (Hunt-
ing Decl. ¶ 24). She further explained that, in contrast, the
photograph of the Mersin bed shows “neither one of th[e]
two structures (a tongue or a bracket)” that is shown in the
Fusion assembly instructions. J.A. 9060 (Hunting Decl.
¶ 25). She continued: “What is pictured [in the photo] is
most likely a hole. The rail does not appear to have any
downward oriented tongue. The fabric is not bulging out-
ward as would be the case if the wings of the bracket were
underneath the fabric.” Id. She thus concluded that the
Fusion bed and the as-sold Mersin bed are different.
She wasn’t the only one to come to this conclusion.
Mr. Jayson Lee, a member of Zinus’s research and develop-
ment team, explained that the cost of production for the
Mersin bed shown in the inspection report was low. He
suggested that this was due, in part, to the design of the
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 5 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 6
bed having a center support rail that is inserted into a slot
in the footboard rather than having a center support rail
with a connector that attaches to another connector on the
footboard. J.A. 9068–69 (Lee Decl. ¶ 9). This design, he
said, would result in a “lower material cost,” consistent
with the low material cost reported on the inspection re-
port. Id.
Cap Export, for its part, argued that the Fusion and
Mersin beds were one and the same and therefore that the
Fusion assembly instructions depicted what was shown in
the photo from the inspection report. That is, Cap Export
argued that the instructions clarified that the Mersin bed
did indeed have the requisite connectors on the center rail
and the footboard, not just a hole for the rail to slide into.
It relied principally on the testimony of third-party witness
Agnes Tan, Woody’s marketing director. During her depo-
sition, Ms. Tan testified that Woody’s Mersin bed has a
PC001 factory code, and that this factory code is for
Woody’s “bed in a box” product. J.A. 8447 (Tan
Dep. 17:8–14, 18:13–14). She also confirmed that “[a]ny
time there is a PC001 as the first part of the identifying
code, that refers to the ‘bed in a box.’” Id. (Tan
Dep. 19:11–15). She further testified that products with
the PC001 factory code are “all the same constructions” but
with different possible stitching on the headboard. Id. (Tan
Dep. 18:18–19:10). She also testified that “Mersin” is the
name that Jusama Group Consulting Inc.1 calls the prod-
uct. Because the Fusion bed assembly instructions were
also for a “bed-in-a-box” product, Cap Export argued that
it necessarily had a PC001 factory code and the same con-
struction as the Mersin bed-in-a-box product, thus defeat-
ing Zinus’s theory that the photo from the inspection report
1 Mr. Lawrie was part-owner of Jusama (a sales rep-
resentative for Zinus Inc. (Korea)) when Jusama purchased
the Mersin bed from Woody.
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 6 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 7
showed a hole in the footboard of the Mersin bed for the
center support rail to slide into instead of tab and bracket
connectors.
The district court agreed with Cap Export. In doing so,
it considered the Fusion assembly instructions alongside
the photo of the as-sold Mersin bed from the inspection re-
port, concluding that Ms. Tan’s testimony “demonstrates
that they are the same bed-in-a-box product.” Cap Export,
LLC. v. Zinus, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 3d 968, 981 (C.D. Cal.
2021) (Summary Judgment Op.) (citing J.A. 8447 (Tan
Dep. 17:8–20:21)). Using the Fusion assembly instructions
to “explain how to connect the [Mersin bed’s] longitudinal
bar . . . to the headboard and footboard,” the district court
concluded that the on-sale Mersin bed satisfied every ele-
ment of the claims, including the requisite connector on the
longitudinal bar configured to attach to the connector on
the footboard. See id. at 988–91. The court entered sum-
mary judgment of invalidity on this basis.2
Zinus appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
We review the district court’s summary judgment un-
der the law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth Circuit.
Pharma Tech Sols., Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 942 F.3d 1372,
1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “The Ninth Circuit reviews a
2 Cap Export also argued before the district court
that even if Zinus was correct that the picture of the as-
sold Fusion bed showed the longitudinal bar inserted into
a hole in the footboard, it would still anticipate the patent
claims, because a male-female connection mechanism
would anticipate the disputed connector limitations. The
district court did not address this argument in reaching its
decision, and, accordingly, the parties did not brief it on ap-
peal.
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 7 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 8
district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Id.
at 1380 (citing Forester v. Chertoff, 500 F.3d 920, 923
(9th Cir. 2007)). Summary judgment is only appropriate
“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Whether a patent is invalid under the on-sale bar is a
question of law based on underlying fact findings. Meds.
Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(en banc). The on-sale bar is triggered if, before the critical
date, the claimed invention was both (1) the subject of a
commercial offer for sale and (2) ready for patenting. Pfaff
v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67 (1998). “The invention
that is the subject matter of the offer for sale must satisfy
each claim limitation of the patent,” and “it may do so in-
herently.” Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, LLC, 269 F.3d
1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Because anticipation is a ques-
tion of fact, summary judgment of invalidity under the on-
sale bar is only proper “if no reasonable jury could find that
the patent is not anticipated” by the on-sale product. Te-
lemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
On appeal, Zinus argues that multiple disputed facts
preclude summary judgment. Zinus argues, as it did be-
low, that there is a factual dispute over whether the Fusion
assembly instructions apply to the as-sold Mersin bed, cit-
ing the testimony from Ms. Hunting that those instructions
could have been placed in the Mersin box by mistake as
well as Ms. Hunting’s interpretation of the photo from the
inspection report. Cap Export defends the district court’s
judgment, arguing that Ms. Tan’s testimony establishes
that the two beds are one and the same. We agree with
Zinus that there are genuine disputes of material fact. In-
deed, there are factual disputes regarding whether the Fu-
sion bed and Mersin bed are the same structurally,
whether the Fusion instructions describe the structure of
the as-sold Mersin bed, and what exactly the ambiguous
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 8 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 8 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 9
photo of the Mersin bed depicts. Accordingly, summary
judgment was improperly granted.
The district court reviewed the evidence and concluded
that no reasonable jury could find that the Fusion instruc-
tions do not apply to the as-sold Mersin bed. To do so, how-
ever, the court had to make factual inferences in Cap
Export’s favor. For instance, the court inferred from
Ms. Tan’s testimony that the PC001 factory code must ap-
ply to the Fusion bed, demonstrating that the Fusion and
Mersin beds are the same. Summary Judgment Op.,
542 F. Supp. 3d at 981. While a jury could infer this con-
clusion from Ms. Tan’s testimony, this is not the only infer-
ence one could reasonably draw given the vague manner in
which Ms. Tan testified. Indeed, Ms. Tan did not testify
that the Fusion bed had a PC001 factory code; rather, this
must be inferred from her other testimony. Such an infer-
ence would favor the movant, Cap Export, as opposed to the
non-movant, Zinus, which is procedurally improper on
summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (at summary judgment, “the
weighing of the evidence[] and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions,” “[t]he evi-
dence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in his favor”).
The district court also ignored Ms. Hunting’s declara-
tion, which contained factual assertions that tend to under-
mine the court’s factual conclusion that the Fusion
assembly instructions apply to the Mersin bed. Taking the
record as whole, some evidence supports a conclusion that
the Fusion assembly instructions apply to the Mersin bed
and some detracts from that conclusion.
Whether the Fusion assembly instructions apply to the
Mersin bed is no doubt material to the parties’ dispute re-
garding whether the on-sale Mersin bed in fact satisfies all
of the claim limitations. Should a jury agree with non-mo-
vant Zinus and find that the Fusion assembly instructions
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 9 of 10 --

CAP EXPORT, LLC v. ZINUS, INC. 10
do not apply to the Mersin bed, Cap Export would be left
with the photograph of the Mersin bed as the only evidence
with which to prove that the on-sale Mersin bed anticipates
the ’123 patent claims. But what exactly that photograph
shows is also a disputed factual question for the jury to con-
sider. Zinus put forward testimony from Ms. Hunting and
Mr. Lee that what is depicted in the photograph is a hole
in the footboard for the center support rail to slide into.
That is, record evidence could support a factual conclusion
that neither the footboard nor the center support rail has
the claimed connectors that attach to one another.
In sum, while Cap Export presented strong evidence
connecting the Fusion instructions to the Mersin bed, there
are nonetheless genuine disputes of material fact that pre-
clude summary judgment. On remand, however, we would
“not foreclose the district court from entertaining a motion
for summary judgment” on a slightly more developed fac-
tual record “that might obviate the need for a further trial.”
Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed, LLC, 758 F.3d 1352, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting ArcelorMittal Fr. v. AK Steel
Corp., 700 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). The factual
disputes here relate to very targeted issues, e.g., whether
the Fusion bed and the Mersin bed are in fact one and the
same with respect to the features claimed in the ’123 pa-
tent. Should Cap Export produce additional evidence,
summary judgment might well be appropriate at that time.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and are not persuaded. For the foregoing reasons, we va-
cate the district court’s summary judgment and remand for
further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 21-2159 Document: 47 Page: 10 Filed: 09/22/2022

-- 10 of 10 --