On June 7, 2026, District Judge Brian Cogan (E.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Hit Notion LLC’s (Hit Notion’s) summary judgment motion on patent inventorship, on-sale bar, and obviousness, denying a summary judgment motion by Defendant Digitalprints USA Corporation d/b/a Cheer Collection (Cheer Collection) for invalidity based on similar issues and indefiniteness. Hit Notion LLC v. Digitalprints USA Corp., No. 24-cv-7986, 2026 BL 219173 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2026).

This dispute arose in March 2017 when the parties, both pillow retailers, requested custom pillow designs from the same Chinese pillow manufacturer, MJ Textile. MJ Textile sent the same photo of a sample pillow to both parties, and the parties unknowingly purchased and began selling similar pillows. Id. at *1-2. Hit Notion filed a patent application for its pillow in October 2017, now issued as U.S. Design Patent D875,432. Id. at *2.

In April 2024, Hit Notion filed suit against Cheer Collection based on patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Both parties moved for summary judgment on several aspects of patent infringement.

Inventorship. Hit Notion argued for full inventorship, while Cheer Collection countered that MJ Textile’s founder, Sophia Chen, is the proper inventor and should have been listed on the patent. The Court agreed with Hit Notion, finding that Cheer Collection’s evidence—email statements by Chen, who has since passed, and a declaration by the current General Manger, who took over in 2018—is inadmissible. Id. at *3. And the undisputed facts show at best that both parties approached Chen with ideas for a pillow, and “Chen reduced their ideas to practice.” Id. at *4. These facts fall short of satisfying Defendant’s burden of showing by “clear and convincing evidence” that it is “highly probable” that Chen invented the pillow. Id.

On-Sale Bar. Cheer Collection argued that the patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because the claimed invention was “on sale” or “otherwise available” to the public before the patent filing date. Id. The court applied the exception in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A): a disclosure or sale made 1 year or less before the filing date is not prior art if the sale was made by someone who “obtained the [invention] directly or indirectly from the inventor.” Id. Because MJ Textile obtained the pillow that it sold to Defendant directly from its inventor Hit Notion in March 2017, less than a year before the filing date, the on-sale bar does not apply. Id. at *5.

Obviousness. Judge Cogan disagreed with Cheer Collection’s arguments that the patent is invalid because “substantial questions exist as to their obviousness” according to two USPTO decisions granting reexamination. Id. at *5. Cheer Collection failed to explain on what grounds the USPTO ruled, merely citing to the existence of the decisions, and the Court “decline[d] to sift through the reexamination requests.” Id. at *6. Thus, as reexamination requests are “preliminary” and not binding on district courts, the Court granted Hit Notion’s motion on the issue of obviousness. Id. at *5-6.

Indefiniteness. Cheer Collection argued that the patent’s figures are inconsistent in showing the connection between the pillow’s “arms” and “body” and make it impossible for an ordinary observer to understand the scope of reasonable design under § 112. The Court found a genuine question of material fact and denied Cheer Collection’s motion on this issue. Id. at *6-7.