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

How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the Commission's document; before publishing, code checked that the quotation and the citations it gives appear in that document. Editorial policy

More on this topic

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