Team Worldwide v. Academy Sports & Home Depot: Air Mattress Patent War Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Team Worldwide Corporation sued over a dozen major US retailers — including Academy Sports, Home Depot, Amazon, Costco, and Target — asserting three patents covering air mattress technology. After 1,887 days of consolidated litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, all parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.
A Five-Year Multi-Retailer Air Mattress Patent Battle Ends by Consent
Team Worldwide Corporation filed suit on March 21, 2019, in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three US patents — US9211018B2, US7346950B2, and US7246394B2 — against a sweeping roster of major retail defendants including Academy Sports + Outdoors, Home Depot, Amazon, Costco, Target, Macy’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Bed Bath & Beyond, Sears, and Ace Hardware. The accused products spanned a broad range of consumer air mattress brands including SoundAsleep, Insta Bed, EZ Bed, Serta, Kelty, and Swiss Gear, among others.
The litigation was consolidated into a single docket and ran for nearly five-and-a-half years before concluding on May 20, 2024. Resolution came through a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal signed by all parties, which represented that the consolidated case and each individual member case had been resolved. The court accepted the stipulation and ordered dismissal with prejudice across all actions, with each party bearing its own costs — a structure consistent with a confidential settlement or cross-license agreement, though the public record does not confirm specific financial terms.
A duration of 1,887 days is notably long even by Eastern District of Texas standards, suggesting the case survived multiple rounds of motion practice, claim construction, and likely inter partes review proceedings before the parties reached resolution. The dismissal with prejudice means Team Worldwide is permanently barred from re-asserting these specific claims against these defendants on the same accused products. The absence of a cost award to either side is typical of negotiated resolutions and leaves the underlying merits unadjudicated in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1887 days
1,887 days — over 5 years, well above the Eastern District of Texas median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both sides
Dismissal with prejudice ends all claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Team Worldwide cannot re-file the same claims against these defendants on the same accused products. The joint stipulation structure — signed by all parties — indicates a mutually agreed resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal, and courts treat such orders as binding final judgments.
Permanent bar on re-filingTeam Worldwide closes multi-front litigation — likely on negotiated terms
Dismissal with prejudice following a joint stipulation across 12+ defendants strongly suggests Team Worldwide secured some form of commercial resolution — potentially licensing revenue, royalty agreements, or design-around commitments — before agreeing to dismiss. The public record does not confirm financial terms. Team Worldwide retains its patents and may assert them against defendants not party to this action.
Patents remain enforceableRetailers exit litigation without public admission of infringement
All named retailer defendants — including Academy Sports, Home Depot, Amazon, Costco, and Target — exited the case under terms that impose no public finding of infringement or validity. Each bears its own legal costs, consistent with a negotiated exit. However, the with-prejudice nature of the dismissal also protects defendants: Team Worldwide cannot relitigate these specific claims against them on the same accused products.
No public infringement findingAir mattress IP remains active — non-parties remain exposed
Team Worldwide’s three air mattress patents survive this litigation intact and enforceable. Any retailer or manufacturer not named in this consolidated action — or selling different accused products — remains potentially exposed. The breadth of the original defendant roster, spanning virtually every major US mass-market retailer, signals that Team Worldwide pursued an aggressive licensing strategy in this product category that may continue.
Patents still enforceable against othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Team Worldwide Corporation | Company | Air mattress IP licensor — holder of US9211018B2, US7346950B2, and US7246394B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors | Company | Major US sporting goods and home goods retailers selling accused inflatable bed productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Home Depot Product Authority, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amadou Kilkenny Diaw | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brittany Vacek Ruyak | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Corrine Saylor Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth Ashley O’Brien | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth L. DeRieux | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | In Kyung Shin | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Mark Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Michael Woods | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Korula T. Cherian | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert M. Harkins, Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald Wielkopolski | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | S. Calvin Capshaw , III | Attorney | Counsel for Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Capshaw DeRieux LLP | Law Firm | Representing Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherian LLP | Law Firm | Representing Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Goodwin Procter, LLP – Washington DC | Law Firm | Representing Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law | Law Firm | Representing Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | RuyakCherian LLP | Law Firm | Representing Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Mann Firm | Law Firm | Representing Team Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew M. McCoy | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bethany Mihalik | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Doowon Chung | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Shepherd Artz | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Steinhaeuser | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter E Doyle | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reid E. Dodge | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Trevor Carter | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Anthony Caloiaro | Attorney | Counsel for Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC – Ann Arbor | Law Firm | Representing Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dickinson Wright, PLLC (Mi) | Law Firm | Representing Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC – Reno | Law Firm | Representing Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP – DC | Law Firm | Representing Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP – Indianapolis | Law Firm | Representing Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP – Minneapolis | Law Firm | Representing Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Academy, LTD d/b/a Academy Sports + OutdoorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal is notable for its breadth: it expressly covers both the consolidated master case and each individual member case, leaving no residual claim unresolved. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future re-filing by Team Worldwide against these specific defendants on the same accused products. The order that each party bear its own costs — rather than awarding fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution and does not constitute any finding on the merits of infringement or validity.
US9211018B2, US7346950B2 & US7246394B2 — Air Mattress and Inflatable Bed Technology
The three patents at the centre of this case — US9211018B2 (application US11/032550), US7346950B2 (application US10/696813), and US7246394B2 (application US11/326829) — cover technology in the inflatable mattress and air bed space. The application numbers indicate filings spanning the mid-2000s, suggesting these are mature assets that have been commercially relevant across a significant product lifecycle. The patents cover aspects of air mattress construction, inflation systems, and related inflatable sleep product technology that became ubiquitous in the mass consumer market.
The scale of the retail defendant roster — encompassing Amazon, Costco, Target, Home Depot, Academy Sports, Macy’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and Bed Bath & Beyond — and the breadth of accused brands (SoundAsleep, Insta Bed, EZ Bed, Serta, Kelty, Swiss Gear, Ivation, and others) illustrates the commercial reach of these patents across the entire US consumer air mattress market. For any company developing, importing, or retailing inflatable sleep products, these three patents represent significant FTO risk. All three survived the litigation without a public invalidity ruling, reinforcing their enforceability.
Should your air mattress product line be cleared against US9211018B2 and its family?
Any business designing, sourcing, importing, or retailing consumer air mattresses or inflatable beds in the United States should assess FTO exposure against US9211018B2, US7346950B2, and US7246394B2. This case demonstrates that Team Worldwide is willing to pursue litigation against virtually the entire US retail distribution chain simultaneously — and sustain that litigation for nearly five and a half years. Product teams launching new inflatable sleep products, or retailers onboarding new SKUs in this category, face meaningful enforcement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all three patents against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flag continuation applications that may extend the effective life of this patent family. Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools also allow you to track Team Worldwide’s future assertion activity in real time, giving IP and product teams early warning of new enforcement campaigns before they reach the complaint stage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9211018B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Air Mattress & Consumer Goods Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving consumer air mattress and inflatable product patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including multi-defendant retail supply chain infringement campaigns.
What this case signals for the air mattress and inflatable products IP landscape
A five-year, 12-defendant patent campaign in E.D. Texas reveals how aggressively consumer product IP can be monetised against retail supply chains.
Retailer defendants face compound litigation risk when a patent holder targets the whole market
By suing virtually every major US retailer simultaneously in a consolidated action, Team Worldwide maximised settlement pressure across the supply chain. Retailers selling air mattresses — even as a small SKU — faced five-plus years of litigation exposure and legal costs. IP teams at consumer goods retailers should audit air mattress and inflatable sleep product supply agreements for indemnification clauses.
E.D. Texas consolidation amplifies plaintiff leverage in multi-defendant campaigns
The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for patent holders pursuing multi-defendant infringement campaigns. Consolidation here allowed Team Worldwide to manage discovery and motion practice efficiently across 12 defendants. Any company distributing or retailing air mattress products should monitor Team Worldwide’s patent portfolio for continuation applications and new assertion activity.
Team v Academy — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 20, 2024, pursuant to a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by all parties. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs. The dismissal covers the consolidated master case and all individual member cases. No public finding of infringement or invalidity was made.
Team Worldwide asserted three US patents: US9211018B2, US7346950B2, and US7246394B2. All three relate to air mattress and inflatable bed technology. The accused products included brands such as SoundAsleep, Insta Bed, EZ Bed, Serta, Swiss Gear, Kelty, and Ivation, sold by major US retailers.
Yes. Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Team Worldwide cannot re-assert the same patent claims against the same defendants regarding the same accused products. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties not covered by this dismissal order.
The public record does not detail specific procedural milestones causing the 1,887-day duration. Cases of this complexity — involving 12+ defendants, three patents, and dozens of accused product brands in a consolidated E.D. Texas action — typically involve extensive claim construction proceedings, inter partes review petitions, summary judgment motions, and protracted settlement negotiations, all of which are consistent with this timeline.
Yes. The Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed as Dkt. No. 486 was signed by Team Worldwide and all named defendants, including Academy Sports, Home Depot (both entities), Amazon, Costco, Target, Macy’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Bed Bath & Beyond, Ace Hardware, and Sears/Transform entities. The court’s order expressly dismissed both the consolidated case and each individual member case with prejudice.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.