DCT

3:23-cv-01431

BOA Technology Inc v. MacNeill Engineering Co Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-01431, S.D. Cal., 08/04/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s reel-based closure systems, marketed as "fast twist closure systems" and used in footwear, infringe four U.S. patents related to lace tensioning devices and integrated closure components.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical, reel-based systems used in place of traditional laces to tighten articles like shoes, offering micro-adjustability and a precision fit.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint mentions that Plaintiff sent a letter to an affiliated company of Defendant on May 26, 2023, and its counsel sent a follow-up email on June 14, 2023, providing notice of the asserted patents and the alleged infringement, which may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-01 Plaintiff BOA founded and launched its first products
2004-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 10,362,836 Priority Date
2014-06-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,770,070 Priority Date
2017-09-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,770,070 Issued
2018-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,772,388 Priority Date
2019-07-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,362,836 Issued
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,772,388 Issued
2021-10-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,633,020 Priority Date
2023-04-25 U.S. Patent No. 11,633,020 Issued
2023-05-26 Plaintiff sent notice letter regarding alleged infringement
2023-06-14 Plaintiff's counsel sent follow-up email regarding alleged infringement
2023-08-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,633,020 - "Integrated Closure Device Components and Methods"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the technology as a "novel lace tensioning device for various articles, such as shoes, braces, medical devices, and other apparel" (Compl. ¶15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical reel-based closure system. Exploded-view diagrams in the complaint depict a multi-part assembly including a knob, a housing, and a spool, which together operate to tension a lace (Compl. ¶16, Figures 12A, 12O). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail from the patent's specification to further explain the patented solution.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a "world leader in reel- and dial-based closure systems" and that these systems "revolutionize industries ranging from snowboarding to medical bracing" by allowing for "micro-adjustable, precision fit" (Compl. ¶¶8, 10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct infringement of claims 1-5, 11-15, 18-20, 23-24, and 26-27, but does not identify which are independent (Compl. ¶39).
  • The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 5, which was not provided with the complaint, preventing a breakdown of the essential claim elements.

U.S. Patent No. 10,772,388 - "Integrated Closure Device Components and Methods"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the need for closure devices for articles like shoes and braces that are simple, cost-effective, and easy to assemble, while also allowing for easy attachment of the lace (or tension member) (’388 Patent, col. 1:20-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a reel assembly for tightening a lace that includes a housing, a spool, a drive component, and a tightening component (e.g., a knob) (’388 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect is a design that enables a lace to be inserted through apertures in the housing and a lumen in the spool, after which a knot is tied in the lace and retracted to couple it with the assembly (’388 Patent, Abstract). This configuration is intended to simplify lace attachment and replacement.
  • Technical Importance: The invention's focus on simplified assembly and lace attachment with a reduced component count suggests an effort to lower manufacturing costs and improve user serviceability for reel-based closure systems (’388 Patent, col. 2:42-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least claims 11 and 15 (Compl. ¶45). Claim 11 is an independent claim.
  • Independent Claim 11 recites:
    • A reel based closure device for tightening an article comprising: a housing having an interior region;
    • a spool rotatably positioned within the interior region of the housing, the spool being configured for gathering a tension member there around;
    • a pawl disk positioned axially above the spool, the pawl disk being operably coupled with the spool to allow the spool to rotate in a first direction while preventing rotation of the spool in a second direction; and
    • a knob positioned axially above the pawl disk and coupled therewith such that rotation of the knob relative to the housing causes the spool to rotate in the first direction to gather the tension member around the spool, wherein the knob includes one or more radially protruding flanges.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 10,362,836 - "Reel Based Closure System"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses drawbacks of traditional shoelaces and buckle systems, such as uneven tension distribution and difficulty in adjustment (’836 Patent, col. 1:44-col. 2:32). It discloses a low-friction lacing system with a tightening mechanism (a reel) that allows for incremental tension adjustment and even force distribution along the length of the lace, while also inhibiting unintentional loosening (’836 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 8-12, with Claim 8 being independent (Compl. ¶51; ’836 Patent, col. 33:55).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Defendant's reel-based fit systems used in various footwear products from Puma and Skechers (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 9,770,070 - "Integrated Closure Device Components and Methods"

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint states the patent relates to a "novel closure device for various articles, such as shoes, braces, medical devices, and other apparel" (Compl. ¶33). The provided figure depicts an exploded view of a reel mechanism, suggesting the invention concerns the mechanical components and assembly of such a device (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 12O).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Defendant's reel-based fit systems used in various footwear products from Puma and Skechers (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "reel-based closure systems" used in various footwear products (Compl. ¶3, ¶13). Specific end-products named include the Puma ALPHACAT NITRO Disc Spikeless Golf Shoes and several models from Skechers, such as the GO GOLF Elite 5 and GO GOLF Torque – Twist (Compl. ¶35). The complaint includes a photograph of the Puma ALPHACAT NITRO Disc shoe, which shows a dial-based closure mechanism mounted on the shoe's upper (Compl. p. 7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant advertises the accused products as a "fast twist closure system" (Compl. ¶36). The functionality involves a user turning a dial or knob on the shoe to tension a lace, providing a closure mechanism for the footwear (Compl. ¶¶13, 35). The complaint alleges these systems are sold to third-party shoe companies, including Puma and Skechers, for incorporation into their products (Compl. ¶40, ¶46).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that it attaches claim charts as Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the ’020, ’388, ’836, and ’070 patents, respectively (Compl. ¶¶39, 45, 51, 57). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations provided in the body of the complaint.

’020 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that MacNeill directly infringes at least claims 1-5, 11-15, 18-20, 23-24, and 26-27 of the ’020 Patent by making, using, selling, or importing the Accused Products (Compl. ¶39). It asserts that the Accused Products "meet every limitation" of these claims but provides no element-by-element breakdown of this assertion in the absence of the referenced claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶39).

’388 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that MacNeill directly infringes at least claims 11 and 15 of the ’388 Patent (Compl. ¶45). The narrative allegation states that the accused reel-based fit systems "meet every limitation" of these claims, but does not provide specific factual support for how each claim element is met (Compl. ¶45).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '388 patent will be whether the accused reel-based systems contain each element of independent claim 11. For example, does the accused system contain a distinct "pawl disk" that is "positioned axially above the spool," or is the pawl functionality integrated differently? Similarly, does the accused knob utilize "radially protruding flanges" in the manner claimed?
  • Technical Questions: Since the complaint lacks detailed technical comparisons, a key point of contention will be the factual evidence demonstrating the structure and operation of the accused "fast twist closure system." The court will need to determine if the internal mechanics of Defendant's product, once revealed through discovery, align with the specific claim limitations concerning the interaction between the knob, pawl disk, and spool.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Based on the asserted independent claim of the ’388 Patent, the following terms may be central to the dispute. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of claim terms for the other patents.

  • The Term: "pawl disk" (from ’388 Patent, Claim 11)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 11 requires a "pawl disk positioned axially above the spool." Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical structure and separability of the pawl mechanism from the spool or knob is a critical architectural element of the claim. The definition of "pawl disk" could determine whether systems with integrated pawl features (e.g., pawls integrated into the knob or spool itself) fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify that the pawl disk must be a separate component from all others, which might support an argument that the term covers any disk-like structure that performs the pawl function, even if integrated with another part.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, such as the exploded view in FIG. 6A, consistently depict the pawl disc (640) as a distinct component separate from the spool (620) and knob (660) (’388 Patent, FIG. 6A). The description of the pawl disc as being "positioned axially above the spool" could be argued to imply two separate, stacked components rather than a single integrated one (’388 Patent, col. 35:7-8).

  • The Term: "radially protruding flanges" (from ’388 Patent, Claim 11)

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the feature on the knob used for coupling. The dispute may turn on what degree of protrusion and what specific flange structure meets this limitation. Defendant may argue its knob uses a different coupling mechanism, such as a groove, bayonet, or other structure that is not a "radially protruding flange."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, leaving room for an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass a variety of protruding structures that serve a flange-like function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where "flange portions 1222 flex and slide over...an annular ridge 1223" (’388 Patent, col. 21:1-3). This specific embodiment of flexible flanges interacting with a ridge could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to similar structures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by encouraging third-party shoe companies like Puma and Skechers to import and sell products containing the accused closure systems (e.g., Compl. ¶40, ¶46). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating that the accused systems are specially designed to infringe and have no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶41, ¶47).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving notice via a letter dated May 26, 2023, and a follow-up email from Plaintiff's counsel on June 14, 2023 (e.g., Compl. ¶42, ¶48, ¶54, ¶60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: without claim charts or detailed technical comparisons in the complaint, a primary question is whether discovery will reveal that the internal mechanical structure of Defendant's "fast twist closure system" includes the specific, distinct components—such as a "pawl disk"—recited in the asserted independent claims, or if it employs a fundamentally different, non-infringing design.
  • A key question of claim construction will be the scope of terms defining the interaction between components, such as the "radially protruding flanges" on the knob. The case may turn on whether these terms are interpreted broadly to cover various mechanical coupling methods or are narrowed by the patent's specific embodiments to a particular structure not found in the accused products.
  • An evidentiary question regarding willfulness will be the sufficiency and effect of the pre-suit notice letters. The court will need to assess whether the notices provided were specific enough to trigger a duty to investigate and avoid infringement, and whether Defendant's subsequent conduct was objectively reckless.