PopSockets LLC v. Flygrip Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PopSockets LLC (Colorado)
  • Defendant: Flygrip, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; Irell & Manella LLP
• Case Identification: 1:21-cv-02900, D. Colo., 01/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Plaintiff PopSockets maintains its principal place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to compacting grips for handheld devices, and that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns collapsible accessory grips that can be attached to the back of electronic devices, such as smartphones, to improve one-handed use and to function as a stand.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was precipitated by an October 2021 demand letter from Flygrip alleging infringement. It also notes that Flygrip filed separate infringement lawsuits in the Western District of Texas against Amazon and Walmart, in which Flygrip explicitly identified PopSockets’ products as infringing the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-08-19	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024
2020-10-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024 Issues
2021-03-25	Flygrip allegedly notifies Amazon and Walmart of patent infringement
2021-10-12	Flygrip sends demand letter to PopSockets alleging infringement
2021-10-18	Flygrip sues Amazon and Walmart for patent infringement in W.D. Texas
2023-01-20	PopSockets files Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024 - "Compacting Grip for Handheld Devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024, "Compacting Grip for Handheld Devices", issued October 13, 2020 (the "’024 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the difficulty for users to securely grip large, "bar-shaped" handheld devices with a single hand, which consequently limits the range of motion for the user's thumb across a large touchscreen (’024 Patent, col. 1:37-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus for gripping a handheld device that can move between a collapsed (closed) and an extended (open) position. It comprises a base affixed to the device, an extension, and a grip. In the extended position, a user can insert fingers between the grip and the device for a secure hold, and in the collapsed position, the apparatus lies flat against the device for portability (’024 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-24). The patent describes the extension as a "telescoping structure" that enables this compacting function, as illustrated in figures like FIG. 20a (’024 Patent, col. 4:10-14).
• Technical Importance: The described solution addresses a usability challenge that arose with the market shift toward smartphones with large touchscreens, providing a way to operate them securely with one hand (’024 Patent, col. 2:11-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint indicates that Flygrip’s infringement allegations focus on at least dependent claim 2, which depends on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶15, 23). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’024 patent recites the following essential elements for a "collapsing and expanding one hand gripping apparatus":
  • An apparatus "consisting essentially of" a base, an extension, and a grip, which is fastened or built into the back of a handheld device or case.
  • A base that is fastened or built into the device.
  • An extension that extends perpendicularly from the base and is a "telescoping structure with annular pieces that slide over one-another," allowing movement between a collapsed and an extended position.
  • A disc-shaped grip on the opposite end of the extension.
  • A final state where the apparatus in its collapsed position "lies flat to the handheld device."
• The complaint asserts that PopSockets does not infringe "any claim of the '024 patent" (Compl. ¶55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as the "PopSockets LLC line of PopGrip (and related) products," as well as the "OtterBox Otter+PopSocket line of handheld device cases," which incorporate the PopGrip design (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as featuring a "pull-out PopGrip design" (Compl. ¶15). This functionality involves a collapsible and expandable mechanism that attaches to the back of a phone. When expanded, it serves as a finger grip or a stand. When collapsed, it is relatively flat.
• The complaint alleges that Flygrip has accused major retailers Amazon and Walmart of infringing the ’024 patent by selling these PopSockets products, suggesting the products have significant commercial presence (Compl. ¶¶20-22, 38-40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint reports that Flygrip's infringement allegations in parallel litigation against retailers rely on claim charts, but it does not include these charts as exhibits (Compl. ¶30). The core of Flygrip's infringement theory, as described by PopSockets, is that the "pull-out PopGrip design" of the accused products satisfies the limitations of the ’024 patent, with specific attention drawn to dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶15). Flygrip allegedly contends that the normal use of these products by customers constitutes direct infringement and that PopSockets and its retailers indirectly infringe by providing the products with instructions for such use (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 26).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely concern the construction of the claim term "telescoping structure with annular pieces that slide over one-another" (Claim 1) and the related term in dependent claim 2, "a single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure." The court will need to determine whether the accordion-like bellows of the PopGrip products falls within the scope of these terms.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the PopGrip’s mechanism, which uses a flexible, foldable membrane, operates in a manner equivalent to the claimed "telescoping structure." The patent's use of the limiting phrase "consisting essentially of" raises the question of whether the specific materials and construction of the PopGrip design materially alter its operation from what is claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

• "telescoping structure with annular pieces that slide over one-another" (Claim 1) and "single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" (Claim 2).

Context and Importance

• The definition of the "extension" is the central technical feature of the patent and the likely focal point of the infringement dispute. The accused PopGrip products use a flexible, accordion-style bellows, and whether this design is covered by the patent’s claim language will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical difference between a sliding, rigid-piece telescope and a folding, flexible bellows is the crux of the non-infringement argument.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Flygrip may argue that the term "telescoping" should be interpreted broadly to mean any structure that collapses into itself to become more compact. The specification includes FIG. 20a, which depicts a bellows-like structure (124) and describes the extension as potentially comprising a "series of telescopic pieces 124 that expand/collapse together" (’024 Patent, col. 4:10-14, FIG. 20a). This figure and description appear to closely resemble the structure of the accused products and could support a broader construction.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: PopSockets may argue for a narrower construction, contending that the plain meaning of "telescoping structure with annular pieces that slide" requires separate, rigid, concentric parts, not a single, flexible, folding membrane. They may argue that the bellows in FIG. 20a is merely one embodiment and that the language of claim 1, which governs all other claims, recites a more specific sliding-piece structure that does not read on the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint states that Flygrip has accused Amazon and Walmart of induced infringement, and by extension PopSockets. The alleged basis for inducement is that the accused products "include instructions, both on the product packaging and on the Internet" that teach and encourage customers to use the products in their intended, and allegedly infringing, manner (Compl. ¶¶26, 44). The allegations further state the products are "especially designed or adapted" for this infringing use (Compl. ¶¶25, 43).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not contain a count for willful infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer. However, it notes that Flygrip provided PopSockets with actual notice of the alleged infringement via a letter dated October 12, 2021 (Compl. ¶13). This notice could serve as the basis for a willfulness claim by Flygrip regarding any of PopSockets' post-notice activities.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "telescoping structure," as defined in claim 1 ("with annular pieces that slide over one-another") and further specified in claim 2 ("single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure"), be interpreted to cover the flexible, accordion-like bellows mechanism of the accused PopGrip products? The answer may depend heavily on the weight given to patent figures that appear to depict a similar design.
• A second key question will be one of invalidity: assuming a construction that covers the accused products, PopSockets will need to prove that the claims of the '024 patent are invalid as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. This will require an examination of whether a collapsible, telescoping or bellows-like grip for a handheld device was known or obvious before the patent's 2010 priority date.
• A final question relates to the limiting language of the claims: does the phrase "consisting essentially of" preclude infringement by the PopGrip products? The court may need to decide if the different materials and construction of the PopGrip's flexible bellows represent a material alteration to the "basic and novel properties" of the claimed invention.