Hit Notion v. Digitalprints USA: Husband Pillow Design Patent Dispute Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
Hit Notion LLC filed a design patent infringement action against Digitalprints USA Corporation (trading as Cheer Collection) in Michigan’s Eastern District over the iconic Husband Pillow. After 218 days, the court granted transfer to the Eastern District of New York — denying both dismissal and Hit Notion’s bid for venue discovery.
Venue dispute reshapes Husband Pillow design patent fight
On April 11, 2024, Hit Notion LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Digitalprints USA Corporation, doing business as Cheer Collection. The action asserts two design patents — USD0949600S and USD0875432S — both directed to the ornamental design of the Husband Pillow, a consumer bedding support product. Hit Notion alleges that Cheer Collection’s competing Husband Pillow product infringes those registered design rights.
Rather than answering on the merits, Cheer Collection moved promptly to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer the case, challenging venue in Michigan’s Eastern District. Hit Notion countered with a motion for limited venue discovery, seeking information to contest the transfer. At a November 15, 2024 hearing, the court granted transfer to the Eastern District of New York — the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or § 1406 analysis — while expressly denying dismissal on improper venue grounds and denying Hit Notion’s discovery request.
The 218-day Michigan phase resolved entirely on procedural venue grounds, meaning no substantive rulings on infringement, validity, or damages were issued. The transfer suggests Cheer Collection’s principal place of business or registered agent is located in the Eastern District of New York, which typically signals stronger ties to that forum. The merits of the design patent infringement claims remain fully live in E.D.N.Y., and the public record is silent on any settlement discussions or licensing negotiations between the parties.
Filing to Case Transferred in 218 days
218 days in E.D. Mich. before transfer order — litigation continues in E.D.N.Y.
Case transferred to E.D.N.Y.: what the venue ruling means for both parties
Transfer, not dismissal — the case lives on in a new court
A transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or § 1406 moves the entire action to a court of proper venue without terminating the litigation. The Michigan court explicitly denied Cheer Collection’s request for outright dismissal on improper venue grounds, meaning Hit Notion’s patent infringement claims survive intact. All prior filings carry over, and the Eastern District of New York will take the case from the point of transfer.
Venue transfer — merits preservedHit Notion must re-engage in New York — merits claims intact
Hit Notion retains its infringement claims over both design patents in the Eastern District of New York. The denial of its venue discovery motion suggests the court found the transfer basis sufficiently clear. While the forum shift may increase litigation costs and require local New York counsel, the substantive patent rights remain unaffected. Hit Notion can still pursue injunctive relief, damages, and any other remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patent infringement.
Claims intact — new forumCheer Collection secures home-forum advantage but faces full merits battle
Cheer Collection achieved its primary procedural objective — litigating in a forum where it has a more established presence, consistent with the court’s finding that E.D.N.Y. is the proper venue. However, the court’s denial of dismissal means Cheer Collection must now defend on the merits of the design patent infringement allegations. The partial win on venue does not resolve questions of non-infringement or invalidity of the asserted design patents.
Venue win — merits fight aheadDesign patent enforcement geography: venue strategy matters
This transfer highlights the importance of venue analysis before filing design patent infringement actions against e-commerce and consumer goods companies. Filing in a plaintiff-convenient forum where the defendant lacks meaningful ties risks delay and cost through transfer motions. For Husband Pillow competitors and similar consumer product design patent holders, this case consistently signals that defendants with strong E.D.N.Y. nexus will likely succeed in redirecting litigation to that court.
Venue strategy riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hit Notion LLC | Company | Consumer goods IP licensor — holder of USD0949600S and USD0875432S (Husband Pillow design patents)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Digitalprints USA Corporation | Company | Digitalprints USA Corporation d/b/a Cheer Collection — consumer pillow manufacturer and retailerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew M. Grove | Attorney | Counsel for Hit Notion LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Howard And Howard Attorneys, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Hit Notion LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ariel S. Reinitz | Attorney | Counsel for Digitalprints USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Digitalprints USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is carefully scoped: transfer is granted only to the extent of venue reallocation, and dismissal on improper venue grounds is expressly denied. This distinction is commercially significant — Hit Notion’s design patent infringement claims are preserved in their entirety and will be adjudicated on the merits in E.D.N.Y. The denial of venue discovery suggests the factual basis for transfer was uncontested or evident from the record, limiting Hit Notion’s ability to challenge the ruling on appeal.
USD0949600S & USD0875432S — Husband Pillow ornamental design patents
USD0949600S (Application No. 29/717095) and USD0875432S (Application No. 29/622761) are U.S. design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of the Husband Pillow — a structured backrest support pillow widely sold in the consumer bedding and comfort category. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a manufactured article rather than functional features. The earlier application number of USD0875432S suggests it predates USD0949600S, potentially representing an original design and a subsequent continuation or related design iteration.
The Husband Pillow is a commercially established product category with multiple competing suppliers, making design patent protection a key differentiator for brand owners. Asserting two design patents simultaneously increases the infringement coverage footprint and complicates a non-infringement defence, as a challenger must distinguish its product from both protected designs. For competitors and private-label manufacturers in the e-commerce bedding space — particularly those sourcing from overseas suppliers — these patents represent a meaningful enforcement risk that warrants proactive freedom-to-operate review.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD0949600S and USD0875432S?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling a structured backrest support pillow — including Husband Pillow variants, reading pillows, or arm-rest support cushions — should treat these two design patents as live enforcement risks. Hit Notion’s willingness to litigate across federal districts and assert dual design patents signals an active enforcement posture. The pending E.D.N.Y. proceedings mean injunctions and § 289 total-profits damages remain available remedies.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the ornamental claim scope of USD0949600S and USD0875432S against your product’s visual design elements, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface related design patent families in the backrest pillow category. R&D and product teams developing new comfort pillow SKUs should run this analysis before finalising product aesthetics to avoid costly post-launch redesigns or litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0949600S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases in consumer bedding & E.D.N.Y.
Cases involving design patent enforcement over consumer pillow and bedding products in U.S. district courts, including the Eastern District of New York.
What this case signals for the consumer goods design patent IP landscape
A procedural venue win for Cheer Collection reframes how design patent holders should plan enforcement campaigns against e-commerce rivals.
Verify defendant venue ties before filing design patent actions
The Michigan court’s swift transfer — denying even limited venue discovery — suggests Cheer Collection’s E.D.N.Y. connections were not seriously in dispute. Design patent plaintiffs should conduct pre-suit venue diligence, including reviewing defendant’s incorporation state, warehouse locations, and registered agent address, before selecting a filing forum.
Design patent § 289 damages remain fully in play at E.D.N.Y.
Transfer does not diminish the damages exposure. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, design patent infringement can yield total profits from infringing article sales. With both USD0949600S and USD0875432S asserted, Cheer Collection faces potentially significant disgorgement liability if Hit Notion establishes infringement in New York.
Hit v Digitalprints — key questions answered
Hit Notion LLC filed a design patent infringement action against Digitalprints USA (Cheer Collection) in Michigan’s Eastern District over the Husband Pillow. On November 15, 2024, after 218 days, the court transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York, denying both outright dismissal and Hit Notion’s motion for limited venue discovery.
Hit Notion asserted two U.S. design patents: USD0949600S (Application No. 29/717095) and USD0875432S (Application No. 29/622761). Both protect the ornamental design of the Husband Pillow consumer backrest support product under 35 U.S.C. § 171.
Defendant Digitalprints USA moved to dismiss or transfer, challenging venue in E.D. Mich. The court granted transfer under applicable venue statutes, finding the Eastern District of New York to be the proper forum — consistent with Cheer Collection having stronger ties to that district. The court denied dismissal on improper venue grounds, preserving all infringement claims.
A transfer order does not terminate or dismiss the litigation. Hit Notion’s design patent infringement claims against Cheer Collection survive intact and will be adjudicated on the merits in the Eastern District of New York. All prior filings and procedural history carry over to the transferee court.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder may recover the infringer’s total profits from sales of articles incorporating the patented design — not just a reasonable royalty. This can result in substantial damages exposure for defendants. Hit Notion may also seek injunctive relief to stop ongoing sales of the allegedly infringing Husband Pillow products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.