DCT

2:24-cv-09863

Crye Precision LLC v. Airsoft WHOLESALER Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-09863, C.D. Cal., 11/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants reside in the judicial district, maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, and have committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ airsoft-marketed tactical apparel and gear—including combat pants, shirts, helmets, and plate carriers—infringe six of their utility and design patents covering military-grade equipment.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to advanced military and tactical gear, focusing on integrating functionality like removable protection, user comfort under armor, ventilation, and modularity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants had express actual notice of infringement via pre-suit correspondence and constructive notice via patent marking. It also references a 2019 lawsuit against the same defendants by an unrelated entity, Revision Military, for alleged misappropriation of intellectual property, which Plaintiffs may use to support allegations of knowledge and intent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-07-08 '270 Patent Priority Date
2006-01-26 '948 Patent Priority Date
2006-11-03 '388 Patent Priority Date
2007-07-03 '270 Patent Issue Date
2009-02-04 '666 Patent Priority Date
2009-05-18 D210 Patent Priority Date
2009-10-13 D210 Patent Issue Date
2009-12-29 '948 Patent Issue Date
2011-01-13 '773 Patent Priority Date
2014-01-07 '666 Patent Issue Date
2015-06-16 '773 Patent Issue Date
2016-11-15 '388 Patent Issue Date
2019-01-01 Prior lawsuit filed against Defendants by Revision Military
2023-11-26 Instagram post advertising accused "Lancer Shirt"
2024-11-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,237,270 - "Removable Garment Protective Assembly," issued July 3, 2007 (’270 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for joint protection (e.g., knee pads) that is integrated into a garment for comfort and mobility but is also easily removable for washing or replacement, without compromising the durability of the garment itself (’270 Patent, col. 5:4-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pocket on a garment (e.g., pants leg) that has a central opening. A protective assembly, comprising a stiff outer cap attached to a cushioning insert, is placed inside the pocket. The cap features an outwardly projecting flange that engages the fabric around the pocket's opening, effectively sandwiching the fabric between the cap’s flange and the inner cushion. This secures the pad in place with the protective cap exposed externally (’270 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:21-42).
  • Technical Importance: This design offered a method for securely integrating removable joint protection into tactical apparel, improving on the comfort and convenience of traditional strap-on pads or simple internal pockets that did not protect the garment fabric.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A garment with a front layer defining a central opening.
    • A protective insert larger than the central opening.
    • A stiff cap fixed to the protective insert, which has a flange that projects outwardly and forwardly of the insert.
    • The flange engages the front layer, sandwiching it between the cap flange and the protective insert, thereby removably connecting the assembly to the garment.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 8,621,666 - "Garment Protective Assembly," issued January 7, 2014 (’666 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon prior integrated joint protection by enhancing user comfort, freedom of movement, and ventilation, particularly when a user is bending a joint like the knee (’666 Patent, col. 2:20-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a unitary protective cap that is itself designed to flex. It achieves this with an upper segment and a lower segment separated by a "bending joint," which is defined by one or more grooves extending across the cap. The upper and lower segments are stitched separately to the foam insert, allowing the entire assembly to bend more naturally with the wearer's joint. The design also incorporates ventilation slots through the foam insert (’666 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-43).
  • Technical Importance: This innovation increased the flexibility and breathability of integrated knee pads, making them more comfortable during physically demanding activities.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are presented as an improvement to a base garment protective assembly, with the improvement comprising:
    • A unitary cap having an upper segment separated from a lower segment.
    • The separation is a "bending joint" defined by at least one groove extending substantially across the cap.
    • The upper segment is stitched to the protective insert.
    • The lower segment is separately stitched to the protective insert.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Design Patent No. D602,210 - "Knee or Elbow Protector" (’D210 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D602,210, "Knee or Elbow Protector," issued October 13, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: This is a design patent that protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a knee or elbow protector. The claim is for the visual design as shown in the patent's figures (D210 Patent, "Claim").
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents have a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the kneepad insert for the "Airsoft Gen3 Pant" is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶¶56-57). A visual comparison is provided in the complaint to support this allegation (Compl. p. 11, "The Claim of the D210 Patent" vs. "Defendants' Kneepad Insert").

U.S. Patent No. 9,494,388 - "Vented Ballistic Combat Helmet" (’388 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,494,388, "Vented Ballistic Combat Helmet," issued November 15, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a ballistic helmet constructed from two or more separate shell elements. Fixing these elements together with a space between them creates a ventilation gap, which allows air to move through the helmet for cooling. This multi-piece construction also simplifies manufacturing by reducing the complexity of molding deep, compound curves from ballistic fabrics (’388 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:62-col. 2:23).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The "Lancer Tactical CP AirFrame Style Airsoft Helmet" is alleged to infringe. The complaint specifically calls out its structure of having a first shell element's interior surface spaced apart from a second shell's exterior surface, creating a ventilation gap that prevents a direct projectile path (Compl. ¶66). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused helmet (Compl. p. 13).

U.S. Patent No. 7,636,948 - "Combat Shirt and Armor System" (’948 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,636,948, "Combat Shirt and Armor System," issued December 29, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of heat build-up when wearing body armor over a standard uniform. The solution is a hybrid shirt with a torso made of lightweight, moisture-wicking, stretchable fabric, and sleeves and a collar made of a more durable, less-stretchy woven fabric. The durable portions protect the exposed arms, while the wicking torso enhances comfort under the armor vest (’948 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:55-65).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
  • Accused Features: The "Lancer Tactical Gen 3 Combat Shirt" is alleged to meet the structural limitations of the patent. The complaint includes a promotional image showing the accused shirt worn in a manner consistent with its intended use under a plate carrier (Compl. p. 15).

U.S. Patent No. 9,055,773 - "Lightweight Equipment Carrying Garment" (’773 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,055,773, "Lightweight Equipment Carrying Garment," issued June 16, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention aims to reduce the weight of MOLLE-compatible (Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment) garments like plate carriers. Instead of a solid fabric panel for attaching pouches, it uses a "skeletal" structure of horizontal webbing bands connected by minimal vertical supports. This provides the necessary attachment points (loops) while eliminating significant amounts of material, reducing weight and improving air circulation (’773 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The "Lancer Tactical JPC Jumpable Plate Carrier" is accused of infringing by having a "skeletal cummerbund system with having bands arranged according to Claim 1" (Compl. ¶84). A photograph of the accused plate carrier is provided, showing the skeletal cummerbund structure (Compl. p. 16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Lancer Tactical Airsoft Gen3 Combat Pant," the "Lancer Tactical CP AirFrame Style Airsoft Helmet," the "Lancer Tactical Gen 3 Combat Shirt," and the "Lancer Tactical JPC Jumpable Plate Carrier" (Compl. ¶¶37, 65, 74, 83).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are apparel and equipment manufactured and sold for the airsoft recreational market (Compl. ¶¶4, 28). The complaint alleges these products incorporate the specific, patented features of Plaintiffs' military-grade products, such as the removable kneepad system in the pants and the skeletal cummerbund on the plate carrier (Compl. ¶¶38, 84). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused pants, which shows a knee pad assembly with an external hard cap similar to that described in the patents-in-suit (Compl. p. 8). Defendants are alleged to manufacture, import, and sell these products through a network of distributors (Compl. ¶¶11, 28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’270 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a garment having a front layer positionable to overlie a portion of a human body which is to be protected; The accused Airsoft Gen3 Pant has a front layer that overlies a portion of a human body. ¶38 col. 7:16-19
portions of the front layer which define a central opening defined by an inner periphery; The pant's front layer has portions that define a central opening. ¶38 col. 7:20-22
a protective insert being larger than the central opening; The pant includes a protective insert that is larger than the central opening. ¶38 col. 7:23-24
a stiff cap fixed to the protective insert, the cap having a central region surrounded by a line of attachment where the cap is fixed to the protective insert, wherein a flange projects outwardly from the central region, the flange projecting frontwardly of the insert, the flange having portions which engage the front layer... The pant's assembly includes a stiff cap fixed to the protective insert with a flange that projects outwardly and engages the front layer. ¶38 col. 7:25-30
such that the cap extends frontwardly of the front layer, and the protective insert extends rearwardly of the front layer, the front layer being engaged between the cap flange and the protective insert, and the insert being thus removably connected to the garment. The cap extends frontward of the front layer, and the insert extends rearward, with the front layer engaged between the two, connecting the insert to the garment. ¶¶37-38 col. 8:30-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the accused product, designed for recreational airsoft, falls within the scope of a patent describing a protective assembly for military or professional use. However, claim language is generally given its ordinary meaning without being limited to the specific field of use described in the specification unless the patentee acted as their own lexicographer.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product meets every limitation, but a key factual question will be whether the "stiff cap" is truly "fixed to the protective insert" in the manner required by the claim. The complaint’s visual evidence shows the external appearance but does not show a cross-section of the accused product to confirm the internal attachment method (Compl. p. 10).

’666 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In a garment protective joint assembly having a garment with a front layer with portions which define a central opening...; a foam protective insert being larger than the central opening; and a unitary cap fixed to the protective insert... The Airsoft Gen3 Pant is a garment protective joint assembly with a front layer, central opening, foam insert, and a unitary cap fixed to the insert. ¶48 col. 8:20-27
wherein the improvement comprises: the unitary cap having an upper segment separated from a lower segment by a bending joint defined by at least one groove which extends substantially across the cap, The unitary cap on the accused pant has an upper segment separated from a lower segment by a bending joint defined by at least one groove that extends across the cap. ¶48 col. 8:28-32
wherein the upper segment is stitched to the protective insert, and wherein the lower segment is separately stitched to the protective insert. The upper segment of the cap is stitched to the protective insert, and the lower segment is separately stitched to the protective insert. ¶48 col. 8:33-35
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The central factual dispute will likely be highly technical. Does the accused product's cap have a true "bending joint defined by at least one groove," or are the indentations merely cosmetic? Crucially, does the accused product practice the specific claimed attachment method where the "upper segment is stitched" and the "lower segment is separately stitched"? The complaint asserts this conclusorily, but physical evidence will be required to prove this specific construction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1 from the ’270 Patent

  • The Term: "removably connected to the garment"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purpose. The nature of the "connection"—which is indirect, via the cap's flange engaging the fabric of a pocket—is a likely point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis depends on whether this indirect, mechanical engagement constitutes being "connected" in the context of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the assembly as being "removably receivable within the pocket such that the inner periphery of the front layer is engaged between the stiff cap flange and the insert." This functional description suggests "connected" encompasses being held securely in position by this engagement, rather than requiring a direct fastener (’270 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that merely being "held" or "positioned" within a pocket is distinct from being "connected," which might imply a more positive locking feature. The specification itself uses the term "connected" in a somewhat conclusory manner, which could open the door to arguments about its precise meaning (’270 Patent, col. 8:33-34).

Term 2 from the ’666 Patent

  • The Term: "bending joint defined by at least one groove"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary technological improvement of the ’666 Patent. The case may turn on whether the accused product's cap has a feature that meets the structural and functional requirements of a "bending joint." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether cosmetic indentations on the accused product are sufficient to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an example of grooves that are "about 1/8 inch across, and about 1/8 inch deep" but does not limit the claims to these dimensions, suggesting any surface feature that functions to facilitate bending could meet the definition (’666 Patent, col. 7:17-20).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the function of the joint is to "allow the flexing of the cap" and "facilitate bending" (’666 Patent, col. 7:34-40). A defendant might argue that superficial indentations on its product do not materially contribute to flexibility and therefore do not function as the claimed "bending joint."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendants sell the accused products to customers and encourage infringement through "promotional and marketing materials, instructional manuals, [and] product manuals" that instruct on the use of the infringing features (e.g., Compl. ¶¶39, 49, 67).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been and continues to be willful. This is supported by allegations of both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge, including "express actual notice" from pre-filing correspondence sent by Crye Precision and constructive notice from Plaintiffs' marking of their own products (Compl. ¶30). The complaint further alleges that Defendants were "intimately acquainted with infringing and counterfeiting activities" due to a prior 2019 lawsuit by Revision Military, which may be used to argue a predisposition to disregard intellectual property rights (Compl. ¶29).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural identity: While the accused airsoft products are designed to visually mimic Plaintiffs' military-grade gear, do they actually replicate every structural limitation of the asserted claims? For instance, does the accused kneepad cap feature the specific, separate stitching of its upper and lower segments to the foam insert as required by Claim 1 of the ’666 Patent, or is there a material difference in construction?
  • A central issue for the design patent will be the ordinary observer test: As framed by the complaint's side-by-side visual comparison, would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art knee protectors, be deceived into thinking the design of the Defendants' "Kneepad Insert" is the same as the ornamental design claimed in the D210 Patent?
  • The analysis of willfulness and damages will likely be a core battleground. Can Plaintiffs leverage Defendants' alleged history and pre-suit notice to support a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages, and what is the proper measure of damages (reasonable royalty vs. lost profits) when the patented technology is commercialized in the military market but the alleged infringement occurs in the recreational airsoft market?