DCT
2:19-cv-02587
R A Synergy LLC v. Walmart Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: R and A Synergy, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Walmart, Inc. (Delaware); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Avyno Law P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-02587, C.D. Cal., 04/04/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants’ business operations, including maintaining multiple physical retail stores within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various "knock-off" undersleeve garments infringes two of Plaintiff's utility patents and three of its design patents related to reversible, sleeved garment accessories.
- Technical Context: The technology lies in the field of women's apparel accessories, specifically designed to be worn under sleeveless garments to add sleeves and provide different levels of chest coverage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provides notice of its patents on product hangtags and its website. It also alleges that a customer notified Plaintiff on March 20, 2019, about the accused products on Walmart's website and that this customer had also notified Walmart.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-02-03 | Priority Date for '313 and '465 Patents |
| 2010-07-23 | Priority Date for D'869 Patent |
| 2011-10-18 | D'869 Patent Issue Date |
| 2011-12-01 | Plaintiff's "Sleevey Wonders" product sales begin |
| 2013-02-05 | '313 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-09-09 | '465 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-04-26 | D'420 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-11-04 | Priority Date for D'146 Patent |
| 2018-04-03 | D'146 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-03-20 | Plaintiff notified by a customer of alleged infringement |
| 2019-03-26 | Plaintiff receives an allegedly infringing product |
| 2019-04-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,365,313 - “REVERSIBLE SLEEVED GARMENT ACCESSORY,” issued February 5, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a sleeved undergarment that can be worn with sleeveless or strapless tops without unsightly seams that reveal it as a separate piece. It also notes that existing garments do not allow a wearer to reverse the item to vary the style and level of chest coverage to match different overlying garments. (’313 Patent, col. 1:28-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a reversible, sleeved garment accessory made from a stretchable material. It features a "circular torso member" with two opposing sleeves. Critically, the garment has a "first face section" designed for "minimal coverage" (e.g., a low-cut neckline) and a "second face section" for "fuller coverage" (e.g., a high-cut neckline). This allows the wearer to reverse the accessory to match the neckline of the outer garment, creating a seamless appearance. (’313 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:61-65).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a versatile solution for consumers to modify the appearance of existing sleeveless garments, conceal their arms, and adapt a single accessory to tops with different necklines, thereby expanding a wardrobe. (’313 Patent, col. 1:46-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 11, along with dependent claims 2-5 and 8 (Compl. ¶41).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a reversible sleeved garment accessory comprising: a circular torso member with a first (minimal coverage) and second (fuller coverage) face section; two opposing sleeve members made of four-way stretch material; a form-fitting and reversible design; and a construction where the sleeve members are not separated from the torso member by a seam.
- Independent Claim 10 adds limitations requiring the first face section to have a "V-neckline," the second face section to have a "swooping neckline," and the presence of an "elastic band" with a "closure section."
- Independent Claim 11 recites a reversible sleeved garment accessory with a first (minimal coverage) and second (fuller coverage) face section, both designed to cover the nipples of the wearer.
U.S. Patent No. 8,826,465 - “REVERSIBLE SLEEVED GARMENT ACCESSORY,” issued September 9, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the '313 Patent, the '465 Patent addresses the same problem: the lack of a versatile, seamless, and reversible sleeved undergarment to pair with sleeveless tops. (’465 Patent, col. 1:23-58).
- The Patented Solution: The '465 patent also describes a reversible garment accessory with two faces offering different coverage levels. The claims in this patent appear to focus on similar core concepts but are worded differently, and the specification introduces variations such as a "bodice section" that can extend downward to shape the wearer's midriff. (’465 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-20).
- Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the '313 Patent: providing a versatile accessory to expand wardrobe options for sleeveless garments. (’465 Patent, col. 1:46-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 (Compl. ¶49).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a reversible sleeved garment accessory comprising: a torso member with a first (minimal coverage) and second (fuller coverage) face section; two opposing sleeve members made of multi-way stretch material; a form-fitting and reversible design; and a structure designed to substantially conceal the torso member under an overlying garment while ensuring both face sections provide sufficient coverage to cover the wearer's nipples.
Multi-Patent Capsule: Design Patents
U.S. Design Patent No. D646,869 - “GARMENT,” issued October 18, 2011
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a cropped, long-sleeved garment accessory. The figures illustrate two reversible ornamental designs: one with a high, rounded neckline and the other with a deep V-neckline. (Compl. ¶15-16).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim of the design patent.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "First," "Second," "Third," "Eighth," and "Ninth" Infringing Products have an ornamental design substantially the same as that claimed in the D'869 Patent. (Compl. ¶58).
U.S. Design Patent No. D754,420 - “REVERSIBLE SLEEVED GARMENT,” issued April 26, 2016
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a cropped, long-sleeved garment accessory. The figures show two reversible ornamental designs: one with a high, square-cut neckline and the other with a V-neckline. (Compl. ¶17-18).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim of the design patent.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that at least the "Sixth Infringing Product" and "Seventh Infringing Product" possess an ornamental design substantially the same as the one claimed. (Compl. ¶68).
U.S. Design Patent No. D814,146 - “REVERSIBLE SLEEVED GARMENT,” issued April 3, 2018
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a sleeved garment accessory featuring flared, bell-shaped cuffs on the sleeves. The design is shown with two reversible options: a high, rounded neckline and a V-neckline. (Compl. ¶19-20).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim of the design patent.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "at least the Fifth Infringing Product" has an ornamental design substantially the same as the one claimed. (Compl. ¶78).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies nine distinct "Infringing Products," which it describes as "imitation or knock-off Sleevey Wonders Undersleeves products" sold by Defendants on www.walmart.com. (Compl. ¶24, ¶35). Product names listed on the website include "Seamless Arm Shaper Sleevey Wonders Women's Lace V-neck Perspective Cardigan" and "Women Seamless Shoulder Arm Shaper Slimming Wrap Posture Corrector Tops New." (Compl. ¶26-27).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are "highly inferior knock-off products" that are advertised and sold using Plaintiff's "SLEEVEY WONDERS" trademark. (Compl. ¶23, ¶26). It is further alleged that Defendants use Plaintiff's copyrighted product photographs to market these goods, constituting an "attempt to pass-off the infringing goods as those of Plaintiff's." (Compl. ¶25). The complaint includes photographs in Exhibit Q of one such product and its packaging, alleging the fabric was falsely labeled as cotton/polyester when it was actually nylon/spandex. (Compl. ¶36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or a technical breakdown of how the accused products meet each claim limitation. Instead, it makes the broad allegation that the "Infringing Products... are identical to Plaintiff's patented products" and therefore infringe the asserted claims (Compl. ¶43, ¶51). The following charts summarize this theory of infringement. The complaint provides line drawings from the D'869 patent, illustrating a cropped, long-sleeved garment with both a high-neck and a V-neck reversible design (Compl. ¶16).
'313 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a circular torso member having a first face section and a second face section and two opposing sleeve members extending from the circular torso member | The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are "identical" to Plaintiff’s patented products and thus possess this structure. | ¶43 | col. 5:40-44 |
| where the circular torso member and the two opposing sleeve members are made of four-way stretch material such that the garment is designed to be form fitting and reversible for the wearer | The Infringing Products are alleged to be "identical" to Plaintiff's products, which embody this material property and design. | ¶43 | col. 5:58-63 |
| and where the two opposing sleeve members are not separated from the circular torso member by a seam | The Infringing Products are alleged to be "identical" to Plaintiff's patented products and are thus constructed without a separating seam at the shoulder. | ¶43 | col. 6:46-51 |
| where the first face section provides minimal coverage and the second face section providing fuller coverage | The Infringing Products are alleged to be "identical" to Plaintiff's patented products and therefore feature the claimed dual-coverage, reversible design. | ¶43 | col. 5:44-48 |
'465 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a torso member having a first face section and a second face section and two opposing sleeve members extending from the torso member | The complaint alleges the Infringing Products are "identical" to Plaintiff’s patented products and thus possess this structure. | ¶51 | col. 5:26-33 |
| where the torso member and the two opposing sleeve members are made of a multi-way stretch material | The Infringing Products are alleged to be "knock-offs" that are "identical" to Plaintiff's products, which embody this material property. | ¶51 | col. 5:58-63 |
| where the first face section provides minimal coverage and the second face section providing fuller coverage | The Infringing Products are alleged to be "identical" to Plaintiff's patented products and therefore feature the claimed dual-coverage, reversible design. | ¶51 | col. 5:38-46 |
| and where the minimal coverage of the first face section and the fuller coverage of the second face section are both designed to provide sufficient coverage to cover the nipples on the chest of the wearer | The Infringing Products are alleged to be "identical" to Plaintiff's patented products and thus meet this functional coverage requirement. | ¶51 | col. 5:47-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory rests on the accused products being "identical" to the patented products. A primary point of contention, therefore, may be factual. The defense could argue that the accused products, which the complaint itself calls "highly inferior knock-offs" (Compl. ¶26), are structurally and materially different in ways that avoid infringement.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question may arise from the claim requirement for "four-way stretch material" ('313 Patent, Claim 1) or "multi-way stretch material" ('465 Patent, Claim 1). Given the allegation that an accused product was falsely labeled as cotton/polyester but was actually nylon/spandex (Compl. ¶36), the case may require evidence and testimony on whether the specific material used in the accused products exhibits the claimed stretch properties.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "circular torso member" ('313 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core structure of the garment accessory that encircles the wearer's body. Its construction will be critical because if the accused products use a different structure (e.g., a simple band that is not "circular" or a "member" in the patented sense), it could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function as encircling the torso, which could support an interpretation covering any structure that achieves this purpose. The term "circular" could be argued to mean "encircling" rather than being geometrically round. (’313 Patent, col. 2:10-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently show a specific, integrated piece of fabric forming the upper torso portion, not just a simple elastic band. (’313 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The specification also describes forming the garment from a "single cut of fabric," which could be argued to require a more specific, unitary construction than a simple band with sleeves attached. (’313 Patent, col. 7:36-38).
The Term: "not separated from the circular torso member by a seam" ('313 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to the patent’s goal of creating a "seamless" appearance. Infringement will depend on a factual analysis of how the accused products are constructed at the shoulder and arm juncture. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a clear, binary question of construction that discovery can readily answer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language is direct, suggesting any construction without a seam at this specific location falls within the scope. A party might argue that modern fabric joining techniques that are not traditional "seams" still fall outside this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly highlights the importance of this feature for achieving the invention's purpose, stating the garment "has no shoulder seam along the shoulder portion... or along the upper side of the arms themselves." (’313 Patent, col. 6:46-51). This strong statement of purpose could be used to argue that the term "seam" should be construed to cover any method of joining fabric pieces at that location that would be visible and disrupt the "illusion of being part of the original" garment. (’313 Patent, col. 7:4-6).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants "knew or should have known" their conduct would infringe the design patents and that the infringement was undertaken "with knowledge" of the patents. (Compl. ¶64-65, ¶74-75, ¶84-85). The basis for knowledge may stem from Plaintiff’s alleged patent marking on its products and website (Compl. ¶21) and from an allegation that a customer gave notice to Walmart that it was "selling knock-off products." (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question will be one of factual identity: can Plaintiff prove its allegation that the accused products, which it calls "highly inferior knock-offs" (Compl. ¶26), are in fact "identical" (Compl. ¶43) to its own and thus meet every structural and material limitation of the utility patent claims, including the "no seam" and "four-way stretch" requirements?
- For the design patent claims, the case will turn on the application of the ordinary observer test: would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art of garment accessories, be deceived into believing that the overall ornamental appearance of Walmart's accused products is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the D'869, D'420, and D'146 patents?
- A key issue for willfulness and potential enhanced damages will be one of pre-suit knowledge: what evidence, beyond general allegations of patent marking, will emerge to support the claim that Walmart had actual knowledge of the asserted patents prior to the lawsuit, such as through the alleged customer notification (Compl. ¶23)?