PFG v Tietex
March 13, 2019
Spartanburg, S.C.-based Tietex International has won a jury verdict and post-trial judgment in allegations that it infringed on two patents of Greensboro, N.C.-based Precision Fabrics Group, Inc. (“PFG”).
In 2103 and 2014, PFG filed two actions against Tietex alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,501,639 (“‘639 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,796,162 (“‘162 patent”). Tietex denied that its products infringe the patents. Tietex is involved in innovation and development of nonwoven fabrics, and stitchbonded fabrics in particular, with Tietex’s core business being one of the leading and most well-known stitchbonding companies in the world. Stitchbonding is just one method of making a non-woven fabric and comprises only a small percentage of the non-woven fabric market. In stitchbonding, thin sheets or webs of fibers are bonded or held in place with longitudinal yarn running through the fibers that is sewn into the fibers using many sewing machine needles. The result is a fabric that is primarily a web of fibers, but that has a limited amount of yarn as a mechanical bonding agent. It can be made relatively inexpensively and quickly and has sufficient strength and stability to be used in a variety of applications.
The dispute in this matter relates to the sale of fabric primarily used in the mattress industry for “filler cloth.” Filler cloth is the material used on the underside of the mattress. Filler cloth is sometimes used on the top of the mattress foundation or box spring. The claims of the patents at issue involve filler cloth material that is stitchbonded and treated with a type of fire retardant coating which is an “intumescent.”
PFG sought millions of dollars in claimed damages based upon assertions of literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and claimed willful infringement. The two actions were consolidated and tried to a jury for five days, March 5-9, 2018. The jury returned a defense verdict for Tietex. There was extensive briefing on post-trial motions, which the court took under advisement. On March 8, 2019, the court issued an 88-page order denying PFG’s post-trial motions and entering judgment in favor of Tietex, based upon the jury verdict.
Tietex was represented by Sam Outten, William Brown, and Giles Schanen of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.
PFG was represented by Rick Coughlin, Whit Pierce, and Kurt Rozelsky of Smith Moore Leatherwood, as well as Lynne A. Borchers and Peter D. Siddoway of the Sage Patent Group.
