Clipsy LLC v. Raymond Hahn

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Clipsy, LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: Raymond Hahn, d/b/a Raymond's Boutique (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-05689, C.D. Cal., 06/25/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district, has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s foldable purse hangers infringe two design patents and three utility patents related to a heart-shaped accessory that converts into a functional S-shaped hook.
• Technical Context: The technology occupies a niche in the personal accessories market, offering a dual-function mechanical device that serves as both a decorative item and a portable, functional hanger for items like purses.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the asserted patents via cease and desist communications on March 5, 2020, March 20, 2020, and April 15, 2020, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,162,276 - “Rotary Joint Assembly and Combination Clip-Hook and Jewelry Piece Employing the Same,” issued April 24, 2012 (’276 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the need for a convenient and aesthetically pleasing mechanism to suspend a purse or bag from a surface like a table, thereby avoiding dirty floors, preventing soiling, and deterring theft (’276 Patent, col. 1:28-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a convertible device comprised of two portions connected by a rotary joint. In a first position, the portions form a closed, continuous shape (e.g., a heart) that can be carried as a decorative accessory (’276 Patent, col. 2:5-10; Fig. 1). Upon application of rotational torque, the portions pivot 180 degrees into a second position, forming a functional S-shaped hook capable of suspending an item (’276 Patent, col. 2:10-14; Fig. 3). A spring-loaded indexing mechanism within the joint is designed to hold the device securely in either the closed or open configuration (’276 Patent, col. 2:20-27).
• Technical Importance: This approach combines the function of a portable hanger with the form of a piece of jewelry, creating a single, dual-purpose accessory that is both practical and decorative (’276 Patent, col. 2:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A hook assembly comprising a first portion and a second portion rotatably joined at a rotary joint.
  • The portions define an "enclosed orientation" in a first rotational position and a "hook orientation" in a second rotational position.
  • The joint includes an "index assembly" that selectively maintains the structure in either position.
  • The index assembly includes a "first index surface... having at least one male projection" and a "second index surface... having at least one female detent."
  • The index assembly further includes a "spring assembly that movably biases the first index surface toward the second index surface."
• The complaint also alleges infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 9,273,718 - “Rotary Joint Assembly and Combination Clip-Hook and Jewelry Piece Employing the Same,” issued March 1, 2016 (’718 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with its parent patent, the ’718 Patent addresses the need for a portable and robust device for hanging purses and other accessories from surfaces (’718 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
• The Patented Solution: The ’718 Patent discloses further refinements to the rotary joint mechanism, including an embodiment where one portion is made of a polymer and includes a unitary prong assembly, while the second portion is metal and includes a recess to receive the prongs (’718 Patent, col. 3:17-31; Figs. 23A-24C). This design aims to simplify manufacturing and assembly while maintaining the core functionality of rotating between a closed loop and an open S-hook (’718 Patent, col. 3:57-61).
• Technical Importance: This iteration of the invention suggests a focus on manufacturability, providing for a joint that can be constructed with fewer parts, potentially from different materials, to achieve the same transformative function (’718 Patent, col. 3:41-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A movable enclosing structure with a first portion and a second portion joined at a rotary joint, defining an "enclosed orientation" and an "open orientation."
  • An "index assembly" that selectively maintains the structure in either orientation.
  • The joint includes "a pair of opposing grooves on the first portion."
  • The joint also includes "at least one indicator on the second portion having a projection for selectively engaging each of the grooves."
• The complaint also alleges infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 10,495,136 (’136 Patent) - “Rotary Joint Assembly and Combination Clip-Hook and Jewelry Piece Employing the Rotary Joint Assembly,” issued December 3, 2019

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '718 patent, the '136 Patent further describes the convertible clip-hook device. It focuses on specific structural arrangements of the rotary joint, claiming a movable enclosing structure where the index assembly is defined by a pair of opposing grooves on one portion and an indicator with a projection on the second portion that selectively engages the grooves to hold the device in its open or closed states (’136 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-41).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the transformable nature and internal joint mechanism of the accused purse hangers infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶13, 33).

U.S. Design Patent No. D592,489 (’489 Patent) - “Hanger for Purse or Other Article,” issued May 19, 2009

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for a purse hanger. The figures illustrate the design in both a closed, heart-shaped configuration and an open, S-shaped configuration from multiple perspectives (’489 Patent, Figs. 1-10).
• Asserted Claims: The single claim for "The ornamental design for a hanger for purse or other article, as shown" (Compl. ¶25).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of the Defendant's heart-shaped purse hangers is "substantially similar" to the patented design under the ordinary observer test (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Design Patent No. D592,943 (’943 Patent) - “Hanger for Purse or Other Article,” issued May 26, 2009

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an ornamental design for a purse hanger similar to the '489 Patent. The figures show a heart shape that is slightly wider and more rounded in its closed form, which transforms into a corresponding S-hook when opened (’943 Patent, Figs. 1-10).
• Asserted Claims: The single claim for "The ornamental design for a hanger for purse or other article, as shown" (Compl. ¶25).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of the Defendant's purse hangers is "substantially similar" to this patented design (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "knock-off versions of Clipsy's heart-shaped purse hangers" sold by Defendant under the name "RAYMOND'S BOUTIQUE Purse Handbag Hook Hanger Holder Foldable Stylish Swivel Gift for Table Desk" (Compl. ¶13; p. 7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as purse hangers that are heart-shaped when closed and transform into an "S shape" when twisted open (Compl. ¶6). The complaint provides a screenshot of the accused product, which shows its ability to change from a closed heart shape to an open S-hook (Compl. p. 6). Defendant allegedly markets and sells these products online through the domain <raymondsboutique.com>, which redirects to an Amazon.com storefront (Compl. ¶¶14-16). A screenshot from the Amazon listing shows the product in its closed heart-shape configuration and describes it as a "Foldable Stylish Swivel Gift" (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes general allegations of literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents but does not provide a detailed element-by-element analysis or claim chart (Compl. ¶¶33-34). The following charts summarize the infringement theory that may be inferred from the complaint's general allegations and descriptions of the accused product.

’276 Patent Infringement Allegations

’718 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint provides external images of the accused product but offers no details about its internal joint mechanism. A central factual dispute will concern the specific structure of that joint. The infringement analysis for the utility patents will depend on whether discovery and reverse engineering reveal a mechanism corresponding to the "male projection/female detent" structure of the ’276 Patent or the "grooves/indicator" structure of the ’718 and ’136 Patents.
• Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of technical detail raises the question of whether the infringement allegation is based on a belief that the accused product uses the specific joint mechanisms claimed in the patents, or on a broader theory that any mechanism achieving the same result would infringe.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’276 Patent

• The Term: "index assembly"
• Context and Importance: This term is the functional heart of claim 1. The definition of what constitutes an "index assembly"—and specifically its components like "male projection," "female detent," and "spring assembly"—will be critical. Infringement hinges on whether the accused product's joint falls within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes the joint more generally as a "spring-loaded rotating pivot assembly with at least two indexing positions," which could support a construction not limited to the exact shapes shown (’276 Patent, col. 2:20-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures disclose a specific embodiment using wedge-shaped projections on one insert and corresponding grooves on another, biased by Belleville washers (’276 Patent, Figs. 5-7; col. 5:29-40). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed as limited to this disclosed structure or its equivalents.

For the ’718 Patent

• The Term: "indicator on the second portion having a projection"
• Context and Importance: This term distinguishes claim 1 of the ’718 Patent from the earlier ’276 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving infringement requires showing not just any indexing system, but one that uses this specific "indicator with a projection" structure that engages with "grooves."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "indicator" could arguably be construed broadly to mean any component part that shows or registers the rotational position of the joint.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification illustrates a specific "indicator 3222" that is a discrete component fitting into an "indicator pocket 3234" and engaging with "grooves 3602" on the opposing portion (’718 Patent, Figs. 36, 37, 39; col. 10:2-10). This specific disclosure may support a narrower construction limited to a similar multi-component arrangement.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While the prayer for relief seeks a declaration of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), and/or (c), the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. p. 11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit as a result of three separate cease and desist communications sent by Plaintiff's counsel prior to filing the lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶17-19). The complaint further alleges that Defendant continued to sell the accused products after receiving these notices, which may support a finding of willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶29, 37).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. Design Infringement Scope: A primary issue for the design patents will be one of visual comparison: in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, is the ornamental design of the accused heart-shaped hanger substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’489 and ’943 patents?
2. Utility Infringement Evidence: The central question for the utility patents will be one of technical fact-finding: what is the precise internal mechanism of the accused product’s rotary joint? The case will likely turn on evidence obtained through discovery and reverse engineering to determine if the joint contains structures that meet the specific limitations of the asserted claims in the ’276, ’718, and ’136 patents.
3. Claim Construction: A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: will the court construe the terms defining the joint's indexing mechanism (e.g., "index assembly," "indicator... having a projection") broadly, or will their scope be limited to the specific mechanical embodiments detailed in the patent specifications?