DCT
2:19-cv-09014
Opp Brand Solutions LLC v. Uncaged LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Opp Brand Solutions LLC (California)
- Defendant: Uncaged, LLC (Nebraska)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MANDOUR & ASSOCIATES, APC Associates
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-09014, C.D. Cal., 10/18/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant sells its products nationwide, including within the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its scarf products do not infringe Defendant’s patent for a convertible clutch purse, following Defendant's submission of an infringement report to Amazon.com that resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff's products.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of wearable accessories, specifically scarves and sashes that incorporate hidden pockets for carrying personal items.
- Key Procedural History: The litigation was precipitated by Defendant Uncaged, LLC filing a patent infringement report with Amazon.com against Plaintiff OPP Brand Solutions. This report, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,944,682, led to Amazon disabling twenty-nine of the Plaintiff's product listings. Plaintiff then filed this action seeking a declaration of non-infringement and asserting claims for tortious interference and trade libel based on the allegedly "baseless" and "misrepresented" infringement report. A Certificate of Correction was issued for the patent-in-suit on September 8, 2015, which amended the language of Claim 1.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-02 | ’682 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 61/573,315) |
| 2015-02-03 | ’682 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-09-08 | ’682 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued |
| 2019-09-16 | Defendant alleges patent infringement to Amazon |
| 2019-09-20 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant regarding Amazon complaint |
| 2019-10-18 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,944,682 - "Convertible clutch purse"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,944,682, "Convertible clutch purse," issued February 3, 2015 (the “’682 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a fashion accessory that combines the aesthetic qualities of a decorative scarf or sash with the utility of a purse. It notes that conventional over-the-shoulder "pocket bandoliers" are not designed as complementary fashion garments, and carrying a separate purse can lead to its misplacement or theft (’682 Patent, col. 1:16-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a convertible garment that functions as both a decorative sash and a clutch purse. It is constructed from an inner sheet and a "loosely billowed" outer sheet sewn together to form a continuous loop (’682 Patent, col. 2:12-20). A closable pocket is "sandwiched" between these two layers, and its contents are hidden by the draping of the billowed outer sheet (’682 Patent, col. 2:35-39). The entire sash can be stuffed into the pocket, which is then turned inside-out to transform the garment into a clutch purse (’682 Patent, col. 2:47-50).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to integrate storage directly into a fashion accessory, eliminating the need for a separate purse while maintaining a decorative appearance (’682 Patent, col.1:29-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of "the claims" of the ’682 Patent, with the analysis focusing on the limitations of the patent's single independent claim, Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶12, 22). The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
- Independent Claim 1 (as corrected):
- A convertible sash/clutch purse comprising:
- an elongated composite fabric sash having an inner annuler sheet and an outer loosely billowed annular sheet attached together to form a continuous generally oval ring shaped body;
- a selectively closable pocket separate from and attached to the inner and outer sheets and sandwiched between the inner and outer sheets, wherein the pocket is accessible along one edge joining the inner and outer sheets, and wherein the sash may be folded into a pocket to convert the sash into the clutch purse, wherein the loosely billowed outer sheet of the sash loosely drapes on a wearer and substantially hides content of the pocket when worn as a sash; and
- a drawstring around the ring shaped body to adjust an amount of billow of the loosely billowed sheet.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Plaintiff's "scarf products" sold online, including on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶8, 12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes Plaintiff's products as scarves sold as personal accessories (Compl. ¶8). Exhibit C provides images of what is described as "OPP's scarf design" (Compl. ¶25, Ex. C). One image in Exhibit C shows an infinity-style scarf with a red-orange color and a repeating white arrow pattern (Compl., Ex. C, p. 26).
- The complaint alleges that these scarves are competing products to the Defendant's own accessory products, which are also sold on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶9-10). The dispute arose when Defendant’s infringement report to Amazon resulted in twenty-nine of Plaintiff’s sales listings being disabled (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its allegations are framed as denials that its products meet specific limitations of Claim 1 of the ’682 Patent.
’682 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per Complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated composite fabric sash having an inner annuler sheet and an outer loosely billowed annular sheet attached together to form a continuous generally oval ring shaped body; | Plaintiff alleges its scarf products do not have an "inner annuler sheet" or a "loosely billowed annular sheet." | ¶12, ¶14 | col. 3:18-22 |
| a selectively closable pocket... wherein the sash may be folded into the pocket to convert the sash into the clutch purse... | Plaintiff alleges its scarf products do not have a pocket into which the sash may be folded to be converted into a clutch purse. | ¶12 | col. 4:1-6 |
| a drawstring around the ring shaped body to adjust an amount of billow of the loosely billowed sheet. | Plaintiff alleges its product "clearly does not have a drawstring." | ¶12, ¶14 | col. 4:10-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The central dispute appears to be factual: does the Plaintiff's scarf possess the specific structural components required by Claim 1? The complaint directly denies the presence of an "inner annuler sheet," a "loosely billowed" outer layer, and a "drawstring" (Compl. ¶¶12, 14). The images of Plaintiff's product in Exhibit C, which appear to show a single tube of fabric, may support the argument that it lacks the composite two-sheet structure described in the patent (Compl., Ex. C).
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of the claim terms. For example, a key question for the court will be whether the term "inner annuler sheet" requires a distinct, separate layer of fabric from the "outer loosely billowed annular sheet", as described in the patent's specification, or if it could be construed more broadly to read on a single-layer, tube-like scarf design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "inner annuler sheet"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiff explicitly alleges its products lack this feature (Compl. ¶12, ¶14). The patent's Certificate of Correction changed the original term from "inner sheet" to "inner annuler sheet," indicating its importance. The definition of this term will determine whether a simple tubular scarf falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a specific two-layer construction, and Plaintiff appears to be arguing its single-layer product cannot meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties have not presented arguments, but a party seeking a broader view might argue that any inner surface of a continuous loop scarf could be considered an "inner annuler sheet."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "inner sheet 104" as forming a "generally body hugging sash" and being smaller than the "loosely billowed outer fabric sheet 106" (’682 Patent, col. 2:18-20, 34-36). This suggests a specific, two-part structure where the inner and outer sheets have different properties and dimensions, which could support a narrower construction.
The Term: "loosely billowed annular sheet"
Context and Importance: Plaintiff also denies its product includes this feature (Compl. ¶12). The "billowed" nature is a key aesthetic and functional element of the patented invention, intended to drape attractively and hide the contents of the internal pocket (’682 Patent, col. 2:35-39). Whether Plaintiff’s scarf design can be described as "loosely billowed" will be a central factual and constructional issue.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any scarf worn loosely could be considered "billowed."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the "outer sheet 106 is preferably larger than the inner sheet 104 such that when sewn together, the outer sheet 106 billows and drapes loosely" (’682 Patent, col. 2:34-36). This suggests "billowed" is not just a function of how the product is worn, but a result of its specific two-layer construction with differentiated sheet sizes.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint includes several state and federal claims beyond the request for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. These claims are directed at the Defendant's conduct in reporting the alleged infringement to Amazon.
- Tortious Interference & Trade Libel: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s infringement report to Amazon was a "defamatory misrepresentation," was made with "no reasonable basis," and was "intended to disrupt and interfere with Plaintiff's sales" (Compl. ¶¶17, 34, 36). The complaint alleges that Defendant acted with "intentional and/or reckless disregard" for the truth by falsely stating that Plaintiff's product infringed, given that it is allegedly "so far outside the scope of the claims" (Compl. ¶16-17). These allegations form the basis for claims of Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, Trade Libel, and Unfair Competition (Compl. ¶¶27-47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on the interplay between patent enforcement on e-commerce platforms and the specific technical requirements of the patent claims. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A primary question of structural interpretation: Does Claim 1 of the ’682 Patent, with its requirements for a two-part "inner annuler sheet" and "outer loosely billowed annular sheet" construction, a convertibility feature, and a "drawstring," read on the Plaintiff's apparently single-layer, tubular scarf design?
- A factual question of product characteristics: What is the actual construction of the Plaintiff's accused scarf products? The answer will likely resolve the infringement question, especially regarding the explicit denial of a "drawstring" element.
- A question of enforcement conduct: Was the Defendant’s patent infringement report to Amazon a legitimate exercise of its patent rights, or was it, as the Plaintiff alleges, a "baseless" and "wrongful" act that gives rise to liability for business torts like interference and trade libel? The degree of mismatch between the claim language and the accused product will be central to this inquiry.