DCT
2:17-cv-07033
Bragel Intl Inc v. Charlotte Russe Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bragel International, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Charlotte Russe, Inc.; Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc.; Charlotte Russe Administration, Inc. (all California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wang IP Law Group, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-07033, C.D. Cal., 09/22/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendants are California corporations that reside in the Central District of California and that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s adhesive bra products infringe a patent related to the design of a backless, strapless bra that adheres to the user and uses a central connector.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adhesive undergarments designed to provide support and shaping without traditional back bands or shoulder straps, a product category primarily driven by fashion trends requiring discreet support.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-02 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Pat. 6,780,081 |
| 2004-08-24 | U.S. Pat. 6,780,081 Issues |
| 2017-09-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,780,081 - "Backless, Strapless Bra"
Issued August 24, 2004 (the “’081 Patent”)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a need for a backless, strapless bra that avoids the shortcomings of prior art, such as the use of unreliable disposable adhesives or "extension tabs" to secure the bra to the user's skin, which offered "very limited means for enhancing breast cleavage and breast push-up" (’081 Patent, col. 1:31-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a bra with two separate cups that are secured to the user solely by a reusable, pressure-sensitive adhesive layer covering the interior surface of the cups (’081 Patent, col. 2:25-30). This adhesive is supported by a thermoplastic film material (’081 Patent, col. 8:53-55). A connector is positioned between the inner sides of the cups, which, when engaged, pulls the cups together to create a desired amount of cleavage and push-up enhancement (’081 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design sought to provide a more secure and adjustable adhesive bra by eliminating the need for side extension tabs and introducing a reusable adhesive, giving the user more control over positioning and cleavage enhancement (’081 Patent, col. 1:38-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 6, 11, and 12 (Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A pair of bra cups.
- Each cup having a concave interior surface where "substantially the entire interior surface from edge to edge" has a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
- A "thermoplastic film material" supporting the adhesive layer.
- The bra cup is secured to the breast "solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer."
- A "connector" positioned between the "inner sides" of the cups to adjoin them.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's "Adhesive Push Up Bra" and "Microfiber & Silicone Lined Double Push Up Fashion Bra" (the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are backless, strapless bras that operate using two adhesive-lined cups and a central clasp-style connector (Compl. ¶29-34). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused "Adhesive Push Up Bra" showing two separate cups joined by a transparent plastic clasp at the center (Compl. ¶37, p. 8). Another provided image shows the inside of one cup, which is covered by what appears to be a clear adhesive gel (Compl. ¶37, p. 9). The products are allegedly sold through Defendant's online and brick-and-mortar retail stores (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint provides element-by-element infringement allegations for the accused products, supported by annotated photographs. The core allegations for Claim 1 are summarized below.
’081 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An improved backless, strapless bra comprising: a pair of bra cups... | The accused products are identified as backless, strapless bras that comprise a pair of bra cups. A photograph shows two distinct cups. (Compl. ¶37, p. 8). | ¶29, ¶30, ¶37 | col. 2:40-41 |
| wherein each bra cup comprises: a concave interior surface...wherein substantially the entire interior surface from edge to edge comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive layer... | Each cup of the accused products allegedly has a concave interior surface covered with an "Edge to Edge Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Layer," as depicted in an annotated photograph showing a clear layer covering the entire interior. | ¶32, ¶37 | col. 2:9-14 |
| a thermoplastic film material supporting the pressure sensitive adhesive layer | The accused products allegedly include a "thermoplastic film material supporting the pressure sensitive adhesive layer." (Compl. ¶31). An annotated photograph points to the layer underlying the adhesive. (Compl. ¶37, p. 10). | ¶31, ¶37 | col. 3:65-col.4:4 |
| wherein the bra cup is secured to the user's breast solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer | The complaint includes a photograph captioned "Secured Solely by Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Layer" to allege this limitation is met. (Compl. ¶37, p. 11). | ¶37 | col. 2:27-29 |
| and a connector adapted to adjoin the bra cups, wherein the connector is positioned between the inner sides of each of the bra cups. | The accused products are alleged to have a connector that adjoins the two cups and is positioned between their inner sides. Photographs show a central clasp in both disengaged and engaged states. (Compl. ¶37, p. 11). | ¶34, ¶37 | col. 2:42-45 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "solely." The patent emphasizes the elimination of "extension tabs" used in prior art (’081 Patent, col. 1:33-35). The question for the court will be whether "solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer" precludes any other form of structural support or attachment, or if it simply means the bra is not attached via traditional back or shoulder straps.
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts dependent claim 12, which requires that the adhesive layer is "permanently grown to the interior surface of the bra cups" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint supports this with a photograph labeled "Permanently Grown Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Layer" (Compl. ¶37, p. 14). This raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff can provide to demonstrate that the accused product's manufacturing process constitutes "growing" the adhesive onto the surface, as opposed to applying it via a more conventional coating or lamination method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it is presented as a key point of novelty over prior art that used extension tabs for security. The infringement analysis for claim 1 hinges on whether the accused product, with its central connector, is considered secured "solely" by the adhesive on the cups.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term is meant to be contrasted with conventional bras having back bands and shoulder straps, and that "solely" does not preclude a connector that joins the two adhesive-backed cups.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states, "There is no needs for extension tabs or the like to attach the bra to the user. Rather, the pressure sensitive adhesive layer itself is the only required means for adjoining the bra to the user" (’081 Patent, col. 2:25-29). This language may support an interpretation that no other component can contribute to the attachment to the user's body.
Term: "permanently grown to" (from dependent Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: This term, appearing in an asserted dependent claim, implies a specific manufacturing process rather than just a quality of adhesion. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving infringement of this claim likely requires discovery into the defendant's specific manufacturing techniques, which can be a high evidentiary bar.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "grown." A plaintiff might argue that it is used colloquially to mean an inseparable bond created by a process like heat lamination, which is discussed elsewhere in the patent (’081 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely argue that "grown" has a distinct technical meaning that implies more than mere application or lamination. The absence of a specific definition in the specification, combined with the unusual phrasing, may lead a court to construe it narrowly based on its plain and ordinary meaning, which could be difficult for the plaintiff to prove applies to the accused products.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "is and has been willful" (Compl. ¶44) and that Defendants had "actual or constructive notice of the existence of the ’081 Patent" (Compl. ¶41). The basis for pre-suit knowledge is not specified beyond this general allegation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the limitation "solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer" be construed to read on a product that uses a central mechanical clasp to join two independently adhered cups, or does the function of the clasp in creating tension and support mean the bra is not secured "solely" by the adhesive?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: for the asserted dependent claims, what evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that the accused product's adhesive possesses the specific relative adhesion and cohesion forces required by Claim 11, and, most pointedly, that it is manufactured by being "permanently grown to" the cup surface as required by Claim 12?