DCT
2:24-cv-11222
Spanx LLC v. Honeylove Sculptwear Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Spanx, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Honeylove Sculptwear, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scale LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-11222, C.D. Cal., 12/30/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant maintaining its principal place of business in Los Angeles and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shapewear products infringe six of its utility and design patents related to the construction and ornamental design of compressive garments.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for creating shapewear garments with targeted compression zones, particularly through the application of flocked fibers onto an elastomeric coating, to shape and smooth a wearer's body.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in April 2019, Plaintiff sent Defendant a cease-and-desist letter identifying five of the six asserted patents (’713, ’916, D920, D780, and D784 patents). This alleged pre-suit notice forms the primary basis for the willfulness allegations regarding those five patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-08-01 | Priority Date for '713, '916, ’866, D920, and D784 Patents |
| 2014-07-01 | U.S. Design Patent No. D707,920 Issued |
| 2015-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,179,713 Issued |
| 2016-05-24 | Priority Date for D780 Patent |
| 2017-09-12 | U.S. Design Patent No. D796,780 Issued |
| 2017-09-12 | U.S. Design Patent No. D796,784 Issued |
| 2018-01-01 | Defendant Honeylove Founded (approximate, per complaint) |
| 2018-04-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,930,916 Issued |
| 2019-04-01 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant (approximate) |
| 2019-10-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,455,866 Issued |
| 2024-12-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,179,713 - "Flocked Shapewear Garments"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for comfortable garments that can effectively "restrain, smooth, and conceal undesirable bulges of body fat in targeted areas" such as the abdomen and thighs (’971 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a shapewear garment that uses a specific construction to provide targeted compression. It comprises a base fabric panel onto which an "elastomeric coating" is applied, and "flocked fibers" are then embedded into that coating (’971 Patent, Abstract). This flocked portion is configured into a specific shape with four arms that extend laterally over the wearer's hips to compress the abdominal area (’971 Patent, col. 5:47-6:2).
- Technical Importance: This technology sought to create distinct zones of high compression on a comfortable base fabric, offering a more targeted and potentially more comfortable solution than uniformly compressive fabrics or rigid corsetry (Compl. ¶8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- A flocked shapewear garment for an abdominal area, comprising:
- at least one fabric panel,
- an elastomeric coating on a portion of the fabric panel sized to at least partially cover the abdominal area,
- flocked fibers embedded in the elastomeric coating,
- wherein the coating and fibers form four arms extending laterally over the fabric panel to the hips to provide compression.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1" and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Patent No. 9,930,916 - "Flocked Shapewear Garments"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the '713 Patent: the need for comfortable garments that provide targeted shaping (’916 Patent, col. 1:21-28).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method of making a compression region for a garment. The process involves providing a fabric panel, applying an elastomeric coating in a specific shape (defined by superior and inferior edges that diverge laterally from a central portion), and then applying flocked fibers into the coating to form the final compression region (’916 Patent, col. 8:10-28).
- Technical Importance: By claiming the manufacturing method, the patent protects the process of creating the garment's key functional feature, complementing patents that claim the final product itself.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- The essential elements of method claim 1 are:
- A method of making a compression region for a lower body shapewear garment, comprising:
- providing a first fabric panel with an abdominal region,
- applying an elastomeric coating to that region, where the coating has superior and inferior edges that diverge laterally from a central portion, and
- applying flocked fibers to the elastomeric coating to form the compression region.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1" and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶46).
U.S. Patent No. 10,455,866 - "Flocked Shapewear Garments"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,455,866, "Flocked Shapewear Garments," issued October 29, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a shapewear garment constructed with a base fabric panel and an applied fabric portion for compression. This applied portion includes a central tummy-covering section and a pair of lateral portions, at least one of which "has subportions bifurcating" (splitting) to create a cutout, which provides targeted control and shaping (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:20-33).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the construction of various Honeylove garments, including the "Silhouette Brief" and "SuperPower Short," infringes by incorporating a tummy covering portion with lateral extensions that bifurcate to define a space without the fabric portion (Compl. ¶59, ¶12:1-6).
U.S. Design Patent No. D796,780 - "Garment"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D796,780, "Garment," issued September 12, 2017.
- Technology Synopsis: This design patent protects the ornamental, non-functional visual appearance of a bodysuit-style shapewear garment. The protected design is defined by the specific shapes of its panels and the path of its seam lines (D780 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of Defendant's bodysuit products, such as the "SuperPower" line, is substantially similar to the patented design (Compl. ¶69).
U.S. Design Patent No. D707,920 - "Garment"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D707,920, "Garment," issued July 1, 2014.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design of a high-waisted, short-style shapewear garment. The design is characterized by the particular arrangement and shape of the panels on the front abdominal area (D920 Patent, Figs. 1-2).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the designs of Defendant's products, including the "SuperPower Short," so closely resemble the patented design that an ordinary observer would be deceived (Compl. ¶81-82).
U.S. Design Patent No. D796,784 - "Lower Body Garment"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D796,784, "Lower Body Garment," issued September 12, 2017.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent protects the ornamental design of a lower body shapewear garment, the key feature of which is the visual appearance of front panels that create a crisscross or "X" shape over the abdominal area (D784 Patent, Figs. 1-2).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's garments, including the "SuperPower Short," infringe by incorporating a design that closely resembles the claimed ornamental design, particularly the crisscross front paneling (Compl. ¶94-95).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies a broad range of Honeylove shapewear as the "Infringing Products," including products from its SuperPower, LiftWear, and Silhouette lines (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are shapewear garments sold through Defendant's website and in retail and department stores (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges that Honeylove was founded in 2018 specifically to "imitate Spanx products" and benefit from their established market popularity, positioning Honeylove as a direct competitor that avoided its own research and development costs (Compl. ¶16, ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not included in the filing (Compl. ¶35, ¶46).
'713 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A flocked shapewear garment for an abdominal area, the garment comprising: at least one fabric panel... | The accused products are shapewear garments made of fabric panels designed to be worn over the abdominal area. | ¶35 | col. 2:20-22 |
| an elastomeric coating on at least a portion of the fabric panel, the portion being sized and shaped to at least partially cover the abdominal area, and | The complaint's allegations are conclusory and refer to unprovided exhibits; the theory is that the accused products' compressive regions meet this limitation. | ¶35 | col. 2:22-25 |
| flocked fibers embedded in the elastomeric coating, | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations regarding the materials or manufacturing process of the accused products. | ¶35 | col. 2:26-27 |
| wherein the elastomeric coating and flocked fibers have four arms extending laterally over the fabric panel until proximal adjacent hips to provide compression to the abdominal area. | The complaint does not describe the specific structure of the accused products' compressive zones that allegedly meets this limitation. | ¶35 | col. 2:28-32 |
'916 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of making a compression region for a lower body shapewear garment, the method comprising: providing a first fabric panel comprising an abdominal region... | The accused products are alleged to be made via a process that begins with a fabric panel for the garment's abdominal region. | ¶46 | col. 8:10-15 |
| applying an elastomeric coating to the abdominal region... wherein the superior edge and the inferior edge diverge from each other extending laterally away from the central portion, and | The manufacturing process for the accused products is alleged to include the application of a compressive element having the claimed diverging geometric shape. | ¶46 | col. 8:16-25 |
| applying flocked fibers to the elastomeric coating to form the compression region. | The complaint alleges the accused manufacturing process uses flocked fibers to create the compression region, but offers no specific supporting facts. | ¶46 | col. 8:26-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A dispositive factual question for the '713 and '916 patents will be whether the accused products are made using a process that meets the definition of applying "flocked fibers embedded in the elastomeric coating." The complaint makes this allegation without providing supporting factual detail, raising the question of whether Honeylove's technology for creating compression zones is materially different (e.g., using bonded panels, varied knit tensions, or other non-flocking methods).
- Scope Questions: For the '713 patent, a key dispute may center on whether the accused products' compressive panels can be characterized as having "four arms extending laterally." For the '866 patent, the dispute will likely focus on whether the accused garments' lateral panels have "subportions bifurcating." The resolution of these issues will depend on claim construction and a direct factual comparison of the products to the claim language.
- Design Patent Questions: For the design patents, the analysis will turn on the "ordinary observer" test. The court will need to assess whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products is substantially the same as the designs claimed in the D920, D780, and D784 patents, considering the prior art.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "flocked fibers embedded in the elastomeric coating" (from '713 Claim 1 and '916 Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core technology. The infringement analysis for the '713 and '916 patents may depend entirely on whether Defendant's method of creating compressive zones falls within this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its products use a different, non-infringing technology, such as bonding or weaving, to achieve a similar functional result.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes flocking as a known method for making fabrics, referencing a published patent application, which may support an argument that the term should be given its ordinary meaning in the art and not be limited to a specific process (’866 Patent, col. 4:56-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a specific method of making the flocked fabric using a silkscreen and squeegees, which Defendant could argue limits the claim scope to that particular embodiment or processes that are structurally equivalent (’866 Patent, col. 4:59-65).
The Term: "subportions bifurcating" (from '866 Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term describes a key geometric feature of the '866 patent's claimed garment structure—the splitting of the lateral compression panel. Infringement will depend on whether the cutouts in the accused products are created by a structure that "bifurcates."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "bifurcating" is simply "to divide into two branches or parts," and thus any forked or split panel in the accused product meets this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the figures in the patent, which show a distinct Y-shaped split creating a cutout (e.g., ’866 Patent, Fig. 1, elements 6a, 6b), define the scope of the term. This may support an argument that the specific shape and nature of the split in the accused product is different and does not "bifurcate" in the manner claimed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for all asserted patents, based on the allegation that Defendant encourages retailers and department stores to offer for sale and sell the infringing products (Compl. ¶39, ¶50, ¶61, ¶73, ¶86, ¶99).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents. For the '713, '916, D780, D920, and D784 patents, this knowledge is based on a cease-and-desist letter allegedly sent in April 2019 (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges that continued infringement after receiving this notice was a "deliberate and conscious decision" or constituted "reckless disregard" (Compl. ¶25). No specific factual basis for pre-suit knowledge is alleged for the '866 patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technological implementation: Do the accused Honeylove products achieve targeted compression using "flocked fibers embedded in an elastomeric coating" as required by the '713 and '916 patents, or do they employ a fundamentally different and non-infringing manufacturing process?
- A central dispute will be one of structural and geometric scope: Can the specific shapes of the compressive elements on the accused garments, such as their "four arms" ('713 patent) or "bifurcating" subportions ('866 patent), be construed to fall within the patent claims, or is there a material mismatch in their physical configuration?
- For the design patents, the core issue will be the application of the ordinary observer test: Is the overall visual appearance of the accused Honeylove garments substantially the same as the ornamental designs claimed in the D920, D780, and D784 patents, such that an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design?