Flygrip Inc v. Amazon.com Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flygrip, Inc. (Texas)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware); Coghlan Family Enterprises LLC (Texas); Benjamin Tillinghast (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Hoover, LLP; Katz PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01081, W.D. Tex., 07/14/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants transact business in the district, have committed acts of infringement there, and maintain regular and established places of business, including corporate offices and fulfillment centers for Amazon.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sales of collapsible smartphone grips, including the PopSockets and SpinPop product lines, infringe a patent related to a compacting grip for handheld devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the ergonomic challenge of securely holding and operating large touchscreen smartphones with one hand, a problem that became prevalent as phone designs shifted away from physical keyboards.
• Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant Amazon with pre-suit notice of the patent-in-suit and the alleged infringement via letters on March 25, 2021, and October 15, 2021, which may be relevant to the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-08-19	U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024 Priority Date
2020-10-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024 Issue Date
2021-03-25	Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Amazon
2021-10-15	Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Amazon
2022-07-14	Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty users face when trying to securely grip modern "bar-shaped" handheld devices (e.g., smartphones) with one hand. A conventional grip, where fingers wrap around the device's side, can limit the thumb's range of motion across the front touchscreen, hindering one-handed operation (’024 Patent, col. 1:41-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that attaches to the back of a handheld device, comprising a base, an extension, and a grip. By inserting one or two fingers between the grip and the device's back, a user can secure the device without restricting thumb movement, thereby enabling "secure one-handed operation" (’024 Patent, col. 8:30-34). A key feature is that the apparatus is collapsible, allowing it to lie flat against the device when not in use and expand when needed (’024 Patent, col. 9:4-5).
• Technical Importance: This design sought to improve the usability of increasingly large smartphones by providing a secure, one-handed grip that did not compromise the ability to interact with the full area of the touchscreen (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 2 (Compl. ¶22, ¶23).
• Independent Claim 2, as modified by a Certificate of Correction, recites the essential elements of a "collapsing and expanding one hand gripping apparatus":
  • A base fastened to the back of a handheld device or its case.
  • An extension that extends perpendicularly from the base, which "consist[s] essentially of a single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" made of "graduated sections" that "flex and/or fold over and into one-another."
  • The extension is movable between a collapsed (closed) position and an expanded (open) position.
  • A disc-shaped grip mounted perpendicularly to the end of the extension.
  • In the collapsed position, the apparatus "lies flat to the handheld device."
• The complaint notes that one or more claims are infringed, reserving the right to assert claims other than Claim 2.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are several lines of smartphone grip accessories, including "The Popsockets LLC line of PopGrip (and related) products," "The Quest USA Corp. line of SpinPop products," and "The OtterBox Otter+PopSocket line of handheld device cases" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint specifically names the "Otterbox Products" and the "PopSocket PopWallet" product as infringing examples (Compl. ¶22-23).

Functionality and Market Context

• Based on the complaint's allegations, these products are accessories that attach to the back of a smartphone or case to provide an enhanced grip (Compl. ¶13-14). The infringement theory implies these products feature a base that adheres to the phone, a collapsible/expandable extension (such as an accordion-like structure), and a top portion that serves as a grip for the user's fingers. The complaint alleges these products are made, used, offered for sale, and sold by Amazon and third-party sellers on Amazon's website (Compl. ¶22-23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, which were not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶24, ¶33). The infringement theory is therefore summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024 Infringement Allegations

Flygrip alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 2 of the ’024 Patent (Compl. ¶22-23). The core of the infringement theory suggests that products like the PopGrip function as a "collapsing and expanding one hand gripping apparatus." The theory posits that the adhesive portion of the PopGrip is the claimed "base," its accordion-like bellows is the claimed "extension," and its circular top is the claimed "disc-shaped grip." The complaint alleges that this structure is "fastened... to the back of a handheld device," expands perpendicularly for use, and collapses to lie flat against the device, thereby meeting all limitations of Claim 2 (Compl. ¶22-23). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the interpretation of the phrase "consisting essentially of" in Claim 2. A court will have to determine if features of the accused products, such as interchangeable tops or integrated wallet functions, are additional elements that materially alter the "basic and novel" properties of the invention, potentially placing the products outside the claim's scope.
• Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may arise over whether the accused products' collapsible mechanism—often a flexible, accordion-style bellows—meets the specific claim requirement of a "single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" whose sections "flex and/or fold over and into one-another." Evidence regarding the precise mechanical action of the accused products' collapse will be central to determining if there is a mismatch with the claimed technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core structure of the claimed "extension" and is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its multiple, specific adjectives ("single piece," "conical," "telescoping," "flexible," "tubular") provide fertile ground for a non-infringement argument if the accused product's structure does not meet every limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses "a series of telescopic pieces 124 that expand/collapse together," which could be argued to support a broader concept of a collapsing structure not limited to a single, rigid form (’024 Patent, col. 6:38-40, Fig. 20a).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific. A defendant could argue that the terms "telescoping" and "tubular" imply a structure of nested, concentric cylinders, which is structurally distinct from the accordion-like bellows of the accused products. The modifier "conical" further narrows the required geometry.

• The Term: "flex and/or fold over and into one-another"

• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the mechanical action of the extension's collapse. Its interpretation is critical because if the accused products collapse via a different mechanism (e.g., uniform compression of a bellows), they may not infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that this language should be construed functionally to encompass any collapsing action where parts of the extension move inward and compact upon each other.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "fold over" implies a hinge-like action, pointing to hinged embodiments in the patent family (e.g., U.S. Patent 8,844,098, Fig. 12) to suggest a meaning distinct from the accordion-like compression of the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.

• Inducement (§ 271(b)): The complaint alleges that by providing product descriptions, packaging, and instructions, Defendants knowingly and intentionally encouraged end-users to configure and use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’024 Patent (Compl. ¶29-30).
• Contributory (§ 271(c)): The complaint alleges the accused products are especially designed or adapted for an infringing use, are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶31-32).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It asserts Amazon had pre-suit knowledge from at least two specific notice letters sent on March 25, 2021, and October 15, 2021, as well as knowledge from the service of the original complaint in the action (Compl. ¶25, ¶27-28). The complaint alleges Defendants acted deliberately and recklessly despite an objectively high likelihood of infringement (Compl. ¶39).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the highly detailed language of Claim 2, particularly the term "single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure," be construed broadly enough to encompass the accordion-like bellows mechanism of the accused PopSocket-style products? The outcome of this definitional dispute may be dispositive.
• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the physical act of collapsing the accused products constitute "flex[ing] and/or fold[ing] over and into one-another" as required by the claim, or does it represent a fundamentally different mechanical action, creating a factual non-infringement defense?
• The case will also present a question of infringement scope: what is the limiting effect of the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of"? The court may need to decide whether features present in the accused products but not recited in the claim, such as swappable decorative tops, materially alter the invention's properties and thereby place the products outside the claim's reach.