DCT
2:23-cv-09570
Careismatic Brands LLC v. Workwear Outfitters LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Careismatic Brands, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Workwear Outfitters, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Insight, PLC; Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-09570, C.D. Cal., 12/18/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Workwear Outfitters is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California and is therefore deemed to reside in the district for venue purposes.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its apparel products do not infringe Defendant's patents related to garments with mobility-enhancing stretch panels, and that the patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves incorporating specifically shaped, stretchable fabric panels into workwear garments to improve wearer mobility and comfort during physical tasks.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute began with a demand letter sent by Defendant on July 11, 2023. After attempts to resolve the matter failed, Plaintiff filed an original complaint for declaratory judgment on November 13, 2023. Following a Notice of Allowance for a related patent application, Plaintiff filed this First Amended Complaint to include the allowed claims of that application in its request for a declaration of non-infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-07-30 | Priority Date for ’490 and ’559 Patents |
| 2018-10-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,085,490 Issues |
| 2021-07-06 | U.S. Patent No. 11,051,559 Issues |
| 2023-07-11 | Defendant sends demand letter to Plaintiff |
| 2023-10-12 | Plaintiff sends response letter denying infringement |
| 2023-11-13 | Plaintiff files original Declaratory Judgment complaint |
| 2024-09-16 | U.S. Application No. 17/339,589 receives Notice of Allowance |
| 2024-12-18 | Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,085,490 - "Shirts Configured for Enhancing Worker Mobility"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that shirts designed for work uniforms "tend to be subject to tightness and restriction at various locations when the wearer performs various actions," causing discomfort. (’490 Patent, col. 1:10-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a shirt that incorporates a “stretch panel” on its rear. This panel is not a simple insert but comprises a "plurality of protrusions" that radiate from a central point. This specific geometry is designed to provide stretch at identified "micro sites" on the wearer's back to improve mobility during a predefined range of motions like bending, squatting, and reaching. (’490 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-54).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design purports to offer a targeted solution for enhancing flexibility in durable workwear without compromising the overall structure or resorting to fully form-fitting athletic designs. (’490 Patent, col. 4:38-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 12. (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A shirt with a front panel, a rear panel, sleeves, and a collar.
- A stretch panel on the rear panel with a plurality of protrusions extending from a central point.
- The protrusions include a first one extending vertically toward the collar, a second extending diagonally toward a first side of the rear panel, and a third extending diagonally toward a second side of the rear panel.
- A functional requirement that the stretch panel provides the wearer with enhanced mobility when performing specific motions (e.g., bending over, squatting).
- Independent Claim 12 requires a similar shirt and stretch panel with protrusions, but further specifies that each protrusion "converges to a tip at an end opposite the central point" and that the tips of the protrusions coincide with specific seams of the garment. (’490 Patent, col. 14:19-27).
U.S. Patent No. 11,051,559 - "Shirts Configured for Enhancing Worker Mobility"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’559 Patent, a continuation of the ’490 Patent, addresses the same problem of restricted movement in work uniform shirts. (’559 Patent, col. 1:24-32).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is also a garment with a rear stretch panel having radiating protrusions. The claims of this patent add further specificity to the shape and termination points of the protrusions. (’559 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:60-67).
- Technical Importance: This patent refines the design of the mobility-enhancing panel, suggesting an attempt to capture more specific geometries perceived as advantageous.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of independent claims 1, 9, 18, and 24. (Compl. ¶¶42, 44).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A garment with a front panel, a rear panel, sleeves, and a collar.
- A rear stretch panel with a plurality of protrusions extending from a central point.
- A requirement that "each protrusion narrows in width at a location distal from the central point."
- A requirement that the distal ends of the second and third protrusions coincide with seams adjoining the front and rear panels.
- Independent Claim 24 requires a similar garment and stretch panel, but specifies that the distal end of the first protrusion coincides with the collar seam. (’559 Patent, col. 14:50-68).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent Application No. 17/339,589
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent Application No. 17/339,589. The complaint notes it received a Notice of Allowance on September 16, 2024, but has not yet issued. (Compl. ¶55).
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’559 Patent, this application claims garments with similar mobility-enhancing stretch panels. The allowed claims add further limitations, such as requiring the angle between protrusions to be within a specific range (e.g., 90-150 degrees) and defining the location of the central point. (Compl. ¶¶55, 57).
- Asserted Claims: Plaintiff seeks a declaration of non-infringement of allowed independent claims 1, 11, and 13. (Compl. ¶55).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Product and Second Accused Product do not infringe the allowed claims of the ’589 Application for the same reasons they do not infringe the issued patents, including that they are not garments "configured for enhanced mobility" and lack a functional "stretch panel" with protrusions that narrow in width. (Compl. ¶¶58-60).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies two products: the "Form by Cherokee Zip Front Jacket, Style No. CK390" ("Accused Product") and an unnamed "Second Accused Product." (Compl. ¶¶7, 8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the products as jackets sold as fashion-inspired medical apparel. (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 34). A screenshot from a commercial website shows the Accused Product, a zip-front jacket marketed as women's scrubs. (Compl. p. 6). A photograph depicts the Second Accused Product, which is also a zip-front jacket with shaped panels on the back. (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that the accused panels on both products are included for "decorative, not functional purposes" and that they "actually restrict mobility as that panel is less stretchy than the rest of the Accused Product." (Compl. ¶36, emphasis in original).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’490 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (as disputed by Plaintiff) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A shirt configured for enhanced mobility | The accused product is a jacket, not a "shirt," and is not "configured for enhanced mobility." | ¶34 | col. 11:51-52 |
| a stretch panel located on the rear panel | The product does not contain a "stretch panel"; the accused feature is a decorative panel that restricts, rather than enhances, mobility. | ¶¶34, 36 | col. 11:55-56 |
| comprising a plurality of protrusions that extend from a central point | The product does not contain protrusions as described in the patent specification. | ¶34 | col. 11:56-58 |
| wherein the stretch panel provides a wearer with enhanced mobility when performing one or more of the following motions… | The accused panel does not provide enhanced mobility because it is allegedly less stretchy than the main fabric of the garment. | ¶36 | col. 12:44-50 |
’559 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (as disputed by Plaintiff) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A garment configured for enhanced mobility | The product is not a garment "configured for enhanced mobility." | ¶47 | col. 13:4-5 |
| a stretch panel located on the rear panel | The product does not contain a "stretch panel" as the accused panel is decorative and restricts mobility. | ¶47, 49 | col. 13:8-9 |
| wherein each protrusion narrows in width at a location distal from the central point | The product does not contain protrusions that narrow along their length as described in the patent. | ¶47 | col. 13:14-16 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern claim construction, specifically whether the term "shirt" (in the ’490 Patent) or "garment" (in the ’559 Patent) can be interpreted to read on the accused products, which Plaintiff characterizes as "jackets." The definition of "stretch panel" will also be critical—whether it is defined by its material properties alone or by its function of enhancing mobility.
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises a central factual question: do the accused panels actually "enhance mobility"? Plaintiff's allegation that the panels are less stretchy than the rest of the garment and serve only a decorative function creates a direct conflict with the functional requirements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶36, 49). This suggests the dispute may turn on physical testing and expert analysis of the garments' material properties and effects on a wearer's movement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "shirt" (’490 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term is central because Plaintiff's primary non-infringement argument is that its products are "jackets," not "shirts." (Compl. ¶34). The outcome of this construction could be dispositive for the ’490 Patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "embodiments of the present invention could be incorporated into other types of shirts, such as polo shirts and tee shirts," suggesting the term is not limited to the specific button-front work shirt embodiment shown. (’490 Patent, col. 4:41-43).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title and background consistently refer to "work uniform shirts," and the detailed embodiments describe a traditional shirt structure, not outerwear. (’490 Patent, Title; col. 1:10-17). The patent distinguishes its invention from "athletic gear," which might be argued to include certain types of jackets. (’490 Patent, col. 4:39).
The Term: "stretch panel"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff alleges its products do not contain a "stretch panel" because the accused feature is decorative and allegedly restricts mobility. (Compl. ¶36). Practitioners may focus on whether this term implies a functional requirement beyond simply being made of a stretchable material.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself could be read to mean any panel made of a material that can stretch. The patent defines stretchability by a "fabric stretch percentage." (’490 Patent, col. 6:10-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly defines the panel by its purpose: a panel "configured to provide for stretching of the shirt at an identified micro site in order to provide a wearer with enhanced mobility." (’490 Patent, col. 2:27-30). This language suggests the panel must actually perform the function of enhancing mobility, not merely be capable of stretching.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint seeks a judgment declaring non-infringement "directly or indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement." (Compl. ¶40). However, the factual allegations focus entirely on why the accused products do not meet the limitations of the patent claims required for direct infringement. The complaint does not plead specific facts related to the elements of knowledge or intent for indirect infringement, as its purpose is to deny all forms of liability.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "shirt," used in the context of work uniforms in the ’490 Patent, be construed to cover the accused medical apparel "jackets"? The resolution of this claim construction dispute could significantly impact the scope of the asserted claims.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: does the accused panel in Plaintiff’s products meet the functional requirement of a "stretch panel" that "provides... enhanced mobility"? Plaintiff's assertion that the panel is decorative and less flexible than the surrounding fabric presents a dispositive factual challenge that will likely require expert testimony and empirical testing to resolve.