DCT
2:17-cv-07414
Bragel Intl Inc v. Kohls Department Stores Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bragel International, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (Delaware); Maidenform LLC (Delaware); Coconut Grove Pads, Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wang IP Law Group, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-07414, C.D. Cal., 10/10/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Maidenform Bra: Front-Close Backless Strapless Adhesive Bra" infringes a patent related to the construction of a backless, strapless adhesive bra.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adhesive bras, a segment of the women's intimates market designed to provide support without traditional back or shoulder straps.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-08-02 | Earliest Priority Date ('081 Patent Filing) |
| 2004-08-24 | U.S. Patent No. 6,780,081 Issues |
| 2017-10-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6780081, "Backless, Strapless Bra," issued August 24, 2004 (’081 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a backless, strapless bra that provides breast enhancement and push-up capabilities without relying on traditional, non-permanent adhesives like double-sided tape or extension tabs that attach to the user's side (’081 Patent, col. 1:29-39). Existing solutions were described as providing "very limited means for enhancing breast cleavage and breast push-up" (’081 Patent, col. 1:35-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a bra comprising two separate cups, each with an interior surface that includes a reusable, pressure-sensitive adhesive layer for direct application to the skin (’081 Patent, Abstract). This adhesive is supported by a thermoplastic film material, and the two cups are joined by a central connector (’081 Patent, col. 2:41-55). The design's novelty is partly based on the adhesive itself, which is described as having an adhesion force to the bra cup greater than its cohesion force to the user's skin, allowing for reuse without leaving residue (’081 Patent, col. 3:32-37).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide a strapless bra that is secured "solely" by its adhesive layer, eliminating the need for separate attachment tabs and providing a more integrated and reusable solution for wearing with revealing clothing (’081 Patent, col. 3:45-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 6, 11, and 12 (’081 Patent, ¶21).
- Independent Claim 1:
- An improved backless, strapless bra comprising:
- a pair of bra cups, each having a concave interior surface and an exterior surface;
- wherein substantially the entire interior surface comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive layer for adjoining the cup to a user's breast;
- a thermoplastic film material supporting the adhesive layer;
- wherein the cup is secured to the user's breast solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer; and
- a connector adapted to adjoin the bra cups, positioned between the inner sides of the cups.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but it is standard practice for parties to refine asserted claims during litigation.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Maidenform Bra: Front-Close Backless Strapless Adhesive Bra" (the "Infringing Product") (’081 Patent, ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a backless, strapless bra comprising a pair of adhesive-lined cups joined by a central connector (’081 Patent, ¶29-34). An image provided in the complaint shows the product consists of two distinct cups with a front clasp mechanism. (Compl. ¶37, p. 8). The complaint alleges the product is sold through major retail channels, including Kohl's department stores and Amazon.com (’081 Patent, ¶22, ¶25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint provides a detailed, image-based claim chart alleging infringement of Claim 1. An image of the accused product's interior shows a glossy layer, which the complaint identifies as the "Edge to Edge Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Layer." (Compl. ¶37, p. 9).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a pair of bra cups, wherein each bra cup comprises: | The accused product is alleged to have a pair of bra cups. | ¶37 | col. 8:41-42 |
| a concave interior surface, the interior surface facing towards a user's breast, and an exterior surface facing opposite the interior surface... | The accused product cups are alleged to have a concave interior surface and an opposing exterior surface. A photo depicts the cup's concave shape. | ¶37 | col. 8:43-45 |
| wherein substantially the entire interior surface from edge to edge comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive layer disposed thereon for adjoining the bra cup to the user's breast; | The complaint alleges the entire interior surface of the accused product's cups is covered by a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer. | ¶37 | col. 8:45-48 |
| a thermoplastic film material supporting the pressure sensitive adhesive layer; | The complaint alleges the accused product has a thermoplastic film layer supporting the adhesive. | ¶37 | col. 8:49-51 |
| an outer side facing towards the user's armpit, and an inner side facing opposite the outer side, wherein the bra cup is secured to the user's breast solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer; | The accused product is alleged to be secured to the user only by its adhesive layer, without other tabs or straps. An image shows a hand pressing the adhesive cup onto a surface. | ¶37 | col. 8:52-57 |
| 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 product is alleged to have a front clasp that functions as a connector positioned between the inner sides of the two cups. | ¶37 | col. 8:58-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The term "solely" in the limitation "secured to the user's breast solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer" may be a point of dispute. The defense could argue that the structural rigidity of the cups or the tension from the connector contributes to how the bra is "secured," which would raise the question of whether attachment is truly "solely" by the adhesive.
- Technical Questions: Dependent claim 12 requires that the adhesive layer be "permanently grown to the interior surface" of the bra cups. The complaint alleges this is met but provides only a photo of the adhesive layer as evidence (Compl. ¶37, p. 14). The case may turn on what evidence is required to prove that the accused product's adhesive is "permanently grown" as opposed to being attached by other means, such as lamination or a secondary adhesive. Similarly, proving the specific force relationship in claim 11 ("adhesion force ... greater than a cohesion force") will likely require expert testing and testimony beyond a visual inspection.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "permanently grown to" (from Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: This term is highly specific and unconventional. Its construction is critical because it describes the method of bonding the adhesive to the bra cup, a key feature of the asserted dependent claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its ambiguity could be dispositive for infringement of claim 12.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "grown." A party could argue it should be given its plain meaning, encompassing any method that results in a permanent, inseparable bond between the adhesive and the underlying film.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the adhesive can be "permanently grown to the thermoplastic film material" (´081 Patent, col. 3:9-10). The use of "grown" in conjunction with a "thermoplastic film" may suggest a specific manufacturing process, such as a chemical reaction or a type of co-extrusion, rather than simple lamination or gluing.
The Term: "solely by the pressure sensitive adhesive layer" (from Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the exclusive means of attachment to the user, distinguishing the invention from prior art that used additional "extension tabs" (’081 Patent, col. 1:32-34). The infringement analysis for the primary independent claim hinges on whether the accused product meets this exclusionary limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "secured" refers to the primary method of preventing the bra from falling off, allowing for minor, incidental support from other elements like the connector's tension.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s repeated emphasis on eliminating other attachment means, stating the bra "does not require an additional portion for attaching to the user" (’081 Patent, col. 3:45-47), supports a strict interpretation where the adhesive is the one and only source of attachment force to the user's skin.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on direct infringement through making, using, and selling (’081 Patent, ¶36).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[], blatantly and willfully" (’081 Patent, ¶2) and that they had "actual or constructive notice of the existence of the '081 Patent" (’081 Patent, ¶40). The complaint does not specify the basis for this alleged knowledge, such as a cease-and-desist letter or prior relationship.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the non-standard term "permanently grown," as used in dependent claim 12, be construed to cover the manufacturing process of the accused product's adhesive layer, or does it imply a specific chemical or thermal bonding process not present in the accused device?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the plaintiff provide extrinsic evidence, likely through expert testing, to demonstrate that the accused product meets the specific, functional limitations of the claims? This includes proving (1) that the bra is secured "solely" by the adhesive, without material support from other components, as required by Claim 1, and (2) that the adhesive possesses the relative force properties ("adhesion force ... greater than a cohesion force") recited in Claim 11.