DCT

3:13-cv-00541

Clic Goggles Inc v. Handsome Rewards

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:13-cv-00541, N.D. Cal., 07/30/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on at least one defendant residing in the district and a substantial part of the claims arising there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “copycat glasses” infringe a patent related to eyewear featuring a front magnetic closure and a semi-rigid neck strap.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns eyewear designed to be conveniently worn around the user's neck and easily connected or disconnected over the bridge of the nose.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint, which also references a "Related Cross-Claim and Counterclaim," though no details of these related actions are provided in the document.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,253,388 Priority Date
2001-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,253,388 Issue Date
2013-07-30 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,253,388 - "Eyewear with Snap-Together Bridge"

  • Issued: July 3, 2001.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional eyewear as cumbersome, particularly when used with helmets or certain hairstyles, as it must be positioned by passing it over the head. Eyewear designed to hang around the neck often requires the same inconvenient process ('388 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pair of glasses that separates at the bridge, allowing a user to wrap the frame around their neck and connect the two halves in front of their eyes. The core components are two lens portions with releasable connectors (such as magnets) at their inner ends and a semi-rigid or "form-retaining" strap that connects the temples and rests on the neck ('388 Patent, col. 2:55-68; Fig. 5). This design allows the eyewear to be easily put on and taken off without passing it over the head, while also resting conveniently around the neck when not in use ('388 Patent, col. 1:42-50).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a functional alternative to traditional eyewear, combining secure wearability with the convenience of at-rest neck-hanging functionality, a form factor that has seen commercial adoption.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific claims asserted against the defendants. The independent claims of the patent are Claims 1 and 11.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites, in part:
    • a pair of lenses;
    • a pair of releasable connectors connected to the inner ends of the lenses;
    • a pair of temples connected to the outer ends of the lenses; and
    • a strap connected between the rear ends of the temples that is "rigid enough to generally retain its shape" when disconnected but also "flexible and rebounding enough to be bendable."
  • Independent Claim 11 recites, in part:
    • a pair of lenses;
    • a pair of magnets connected to the inner ends of the lenses; and
    • a "bendable strap" connected between the outer ends of the lenses.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products only as “copycat glasses” marketed and sold by the defendants (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any technical description of the accused products' features or operation. The infringement allegations are based on the premise that the products are “copycat glasses” (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that Defendants’ marketing of these products disparaged and damaged the reputation and value of the Plaintiff’s glasses (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes only general allegations of infringement and does not provide an element-by-element comparison of any asserted claim to the accused products. It states, without further detail, that "Starcrest has been infringing the Patent" (Compl. ¶7). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the lack of specific infringement allegations, the initial point of contention may be the sufficiency of the complaint itself. Should the case proceed, analysis would likely focus on the following questions:

  • Technical Questions: Does the strap on the accused "copycat glasses" possess the dual characteristics of being "rigid enough to generally retain its shape" while also being "flexible and rebounding," as required by Claim 1? What evidence supports the allegation that the accused products use "releasable connectors" or "magnets" at the bridge as claimed?
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's use of the term "copycat glasses" suggests a theory of literal, near-identical infringement. A primary question will be whether the accused products are, in fact, structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed invention, or if there are material differences that place them outside the scope of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms in the context of an infringement dispute. However, based on the patent's language, the following term from independent Claim 1 may be central to any future dispute.

The Term

"a strap... being rigid enough to generally retain its shape"

Context and Importance

This limitation distinguishes the invention from eyewear with a simple flexible cord or string. The definition of the required level of "rigidity" and ability to "retain its shape" will be critical for determining the scope of Claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty over prior art and its interpretation will dictate whether products with varying degrees of strap flexibility fall within the claim.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses a second embodiment with an "adjustable-length flexible strap," such as one made of "a fabric or rubber strap," which may suggest the term "rigid" in Claim 1 should not be interpreted as requiring absolute inflexibility ('388 Patent, col. 3:10-15; Fig. 6).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment is consistently described with a "rigid strap" ('388 Patent, Abstract). The figures illustrating this embodiment, such as Figures 2 and 5, depict a formed, semi-circular band that holds a distinct shape, suggesting the term implies a pre-formed, self-supporting structure rather than a limp one ('388 Patent, col. 2:42-45).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants "induced others to infringe" and requests an injunction against "aiding, inducing or abetting the infringement" (Compl. ¶7, ¶18). The factual basis alleged is the "marketing and selling" of the "copycat glasses" (Compl. ¶8).

Willful Infringement

The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that "Starcrest's infringement has been willful" (Compl. ¶10). It does not allege any facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or a prior notice of infringement.

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

The analysis of this complaint raises two overarching questions that will likely define the early stages of the litigation.

  • A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does a complaint that alleges infringement of a patent by unidentified “copycat glasses,” without specifying any asserted claims or providing any element-by-element factual allegations, meet the plausibility pleading standards required to proceed?
  • Should the case move forward, a key substantive question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "rigid enough to generally retain its shape" from Claim 1? The resolution of this definitional boundary between a semi-rigid, form-holding strap and a simple flexible cord will be critical to determining infringement.