Made3 LLC v. Halo Couture LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Made3, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Halo Couture, LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: ADLI LAW GROUP, Group
• Case Identification: 5:17-cv-01852, C.D. Cal., 09/11/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant's continuous and systematic presence, including the sale and offering for sale of infringing products within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Halo Couture Travel Case" infringes a patent related to a foldable clutch bag designed for storing and transporting hair extensions and similar products.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for a storage and travel apparatus for hair enhancement products that both protects them from damage and provides a fashionable, compact form factor resembling a clutch purse.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the patent-in-suit as early as March 15, 2015, following a meeting between the parties' principals at a trade show where the patent and potential licensing were discussed.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-05-21	'956 Patent Priority Date
2015-03-15	Alleged Actual Notice to Defendant at Trade Show
2015-11-17	'956 Patent Issue Date
2017-09-11	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,185,956 - "HAIR CARRIER CLUTCH BAG"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,185,956, "HAIR CARRIER CLUTCH BAG", issued November 17, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a growing market for hair extensions, wigs, and falls, but a lack of convenient, protective, and fashionable methods for their storage and transport. Existing carriers are said to fail to securely hold the hair products or protect them from damage during movement (’956 Patent, col. 1:15-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a foldable travel carrier that, when open, provides an elongated surface with a clip to secure a hair product. A protective cover sheet then folds over the hair product. The entire apparatus is designed with multiple fold sections that can be sequentially folded or "rolled" into a compact form, secured by a closure, that resembles a woman's clutch bag (’956 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-29). The sequential folding process is a key feature of the design (’956 Patent, col. 3:49-59).
• Technical Importance: The design's stated purpose is to provide a single apparatus that is simultaneously a secure and protective storage device for delicate hair products and a "fashionable" accessory for the user (’956 Patent, col. 2:1-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the '956 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • An "elongated body" comprising at least an "upper fold section," a "middle fold section," a "lower fold section," and a "top overlap section."
  • A "hair product" lying lengthwise along the elongated body.
  • A "clip" coupled to the inner surface of the body to secure the hair product.
  • A "protective cover" including a "first cover sheet" coupled to the body, with a "top edge" of the cover positioned "below said clip."
  • A "closure."
  • A first state where the body is "opened flat."
  • A second state where the body is "rolled into a closed state," which involves a specific three-part folding sequence of the lower, middle, and upper sections, and is described as resembling a clutch bag.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Halo Couture Travel Case and similar products" ("Accused Products") (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details, diagrams, or technical descriptions of the Accused Products' features or operation. It alleges that the products are sold and promoted by the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶12, 22). The name "Travel Case" suggests its function is for transporting items, which, in the context of the Defendant's business and the asserted patent, are presumably hair extensions or related products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations or a claim chart mapping features of the Accused Products to the elements of the asserted claims. The infringement allegation is made generally, stating that the Accused Products "infringe one or more claims of the Patent-In-Suit" (Compl. ¶12). Without a more detailed infringement theory, a direct element-by-element comparison is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of the '956 Patent, any future infringement analysis will likely focus on several key technical and scope questions:

• Scope Questions: Does the accused "Halo Couture Travel Case" contain distinct "upper," "middle," and "lower" fold sections as defined in the patent? Does its closing mechanism meet the specific, sequential "rolled into a closed state" limitation of claim 1, or does it merely fold in a more general manner?
• Technical Questions: Does the accused product utilize a "clip" to secure the hair product, or another mechanism such as a pocket or strap? If it has a clip and a protective cover, is the "top edge of said first cover sheet...positioned below said clip" as strictly required by claim 1? The relative spatial arrangement of these components will be a critical factual issue.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "clip"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "clip" is central to the scope of infringement. The patent primarily discloses a spring-loaded clamp mechanism (’956 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:49-52). A court's interpretation will determine whether the claim reads on other fastening technologies that the Accused Product might use. Practitioners may focus on this term because the difference between a specific type of "clip" and a more general fastener (e.g., a strap, button, or magnet) could be dispositive of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests alternatives beyond the primary embodiment, including "a pair of bar magnet members" or "pre-tensioned elastic straps," which could support an argument that "clip" should be construed more broadly as a general securing mechanism (’956 Patent, col. 6:2-11, 53-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The most detailed description and the corresponding figure relate to a "spring loaded clip 14" with a "fixed arm 44," a "clamp arm 46," and a "spring 48" (’956 Patent, col. 4:49-52). A defendant may argue that the term "clip" should be limited to this disclosed structure or its close equivalents.

The Term: "rolled into a closed state"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1(g) does not merely require folding; it recites a specific multi-step process where the body is "rolled" such that the lower fold section is folded against the middle, and then both are folded against the upper section. Whether the Accused Product performs this exact sequence is a fundamental infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "rolled" should be interpreted functionally to mean any sequential folding process that achieves the compact, clutch-like form, not necessarily a literal, cylindrical roll.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description explicitly lays out a precise sequence: "Fold section 40e is folded over upon fold section 40d...Folded sections 40e and 40d are then folded over upon section 40c," and so on (’956 Patent, col. 8:25-36). This language may support a narrow construction that requires this exact series of folding actions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by its distributors and retailers through its "sales, advertising, and instructions" (Compl. ¶20) and that Defendant possesses the "specific intent to encourage" infringement (Compl. ¶19).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the '956 Patent. The complaint specifically pleads that Defendant received actual notice at a trade show on March 15, 2015—more than two years before the suit was filed—where the parties allegedly discussed the patent and potential licensing (Compl. ¶¶14, 15). The claim of willfulness is based on Defendant’s continued sales of the Accused Products despite this alleged knowledge (Compl. ¶¶16, 24).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "clip", which is described in detail as a spring-loaded mechanism, be construed broadly enough to cover the fastening technology used in the "Halo Couture Travel Case"? Similarly, does the phrase "rolled into a closed state" require the exact multi-step folding sequence described in the specification, or can it cover other methods of achieving a compact form?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual infringement: as the complaint lacks technical detail, the case will depend on evidence demonstrating whether the Accused Product actually incorporates every element of the asserted claims, including the specific spatial relationship between the "clip" and the "protective cover" and the presence of distinct "upper", "middle", and "lower" fold sections.
• The allegation of willfulness will turn on the factual evidence surrounding the March 15, 2015 trade show meeting. The court will need to determine whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and of its alleged infringement, which could expose Defendant to the risk of enhanced damages.