DCT

1:24-cv-02841

Ridge Wallet LLC The v. 2985 LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02841, D. Colo., 10/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in the district, and allegedly conducts substantial business there, including operating its websites and selling the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of minimalist wallets infringes two patents related to compact wallet construction, including versions with a removable money clip and a cash strap.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns compact, minimalist wallets constructed from rigid plates held together by an elastic band, a product category that has gained significant market traction as an alternative to traditional leather wallets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents-in-suit were allowed with consideration of pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against a related patent in the same family. It further alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with explicit notice of infringement on the day each patent issued. The complaint also asserts that Defendant previously altered other product designs to avoid different patents owned by Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-01-01 Plaintiff [The Ridge Wallet LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/law-firm/572263/ridge-wallet) was formed (approx. date)
2015-05-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’704 and ’743 Patents
2016-07-01 Plaintiff began selling its patent-practicing product (approx. date)
2023-07-20 Pre-grant publication of the application leading to the ’743 Patent
2024-09-17 ’704 Patent issued
2024-09-17 Plaintiff provided notice of ’704 Patent infringement to Defendant
2024-10-15 ’743 Patent issued
2024-10-15 Plaintiff provided notice of ’743 Patent infringement to Defendant
2024-10-15 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,089,704 - “Compact Wallet,” issued September 17, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the shortcomings of both traditional bulky wallets and earlier minimalist designs. It notes that prior art minimalist wallets often have limited expansion capacity, make it difficult to access individual cards, and use external fixtures for elastic bands that can snag on pockets (’704 Patent, col. 2:5-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a compact wallet using two rigid plates held together by an encircling elastic band. The core innovation is a longitudinal groove integrated into the plates to house the elastic band, which maximizes the band's expandable length and creates a smooth exterior profile (’704 Patent, col. 3:12-20). The design also incorporates features to improve usability, such as a finger notch to push cards out for fanning and selection, and a modular system for attaching accessories like a money clip (’704 Patent, col. 5:4-23, col. 6:42-53).
  • Technical Importance: The design sought to optimize the minimalist wallet concept by internalizing the retention mechanism, thereby maximizing storage volume and durability while maintaining a snag-free, low-profile form factor (’704 Patent, col. 2:44-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first and second rigid plate that are mirror images of one another.
    • Each plate comprising a first and second lamina.
    • The first lamina including a longitudinal groove and at least one threaded hole.
    • The second lamina including at least one countersunk hole.
    • At least one flat head screw to attach the laminae.
    • An encircling elastic band housed within the longitudinal groove.
    • An elastic strap attached to the encircling band to "register" the contents.
    • A first and second finger notch adjacent to the elastic strap.
    • A money clip removably attached to a plate via a tang inserted into a recess.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 12,114,743 - “Compact Wallet,” issued October 15, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the ’704 Patent, this patent aims to solve the problems of bulk, limited capacity, and inconvenient access associated with traditional and early-generation minimalist wallets (’743 Patent, col. 2:1-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is again a compact wallet built on two rigid plates, a laminated construction, and an internal longitudinal groove for an encircling elastic band (’743 Patent, col. 3:25-30). This patent, however, claims a configuration that includes a second elastic strap positioned over the outside of one of the plates, designed to hold currency or other items externally. This contrasts with the money clip described in the ’704 Patent, offering an alternative, flexible external carry method (’743 Patent, col. 5:12-20).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a non-metallic, flexible exterior carry option for a minimalist wallet, distinct from a rigid money clip, while retaining the core benefits of the internal-channel elastic band design (’743 Patent, col. 2:35-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first and second rigid plate interposed to compress contents.
    • Each plate comprising a first and second lamina with a longitudinal groove, threaded hole, and countersunk hole.
    • At least one flat head screw.
    • An encircling elastic band within the longitudinal groove.
    • At least a second elastic strap positioned over the outside surface of one plate and extending at least partially between the first and second laminae of that plate.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "Mountain Voyage Wallet" line, sold with different accessory configurations. The complaint separates them into the "'704 Patent Accused Products," which include a money clip, and the "'743 Patent Accused Products," which include a cash strap (Compl. ¶41, 42, 44).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as minimalist wallets available in various materials (metal, wood, carbon fiber) that consist of two plates held together to carry cards and cash (Compl. ¶41, 42). Plaintiff alleges that these products are direct "knockoffs" and that Defendant’s founder admitted to having "just emulated [Ridge's] product" (Compl. ¶22, 26). The complaint provides detailed photographs of the accused wallets, including disassembled views of their components, to illustrate their construction and functionality (Compl. ¶59, 71). A provided image of the disassembled accused product shows its constituent parts, including two main plates, an elastic band, and screws (Compl. ¶59, pg. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’704 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a detailed, image-based claim chart alleging that the money clip version of the Mountain Voyage Wallet infringes at least claim 1 of the ’704 Patent (Compl. ¶59). The allegations map the product’s features—such as its two mirror-image plates, laminated construction, internal groove for the main elastic band, and removable money clip—directly onto the claim’s limitations. For example, an annotated photograph shows the money clip with its tang, which is alleged to be insertable into a recess in the wallet plate (Compl. ¶59, pg. 14).

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first rigid plate and a second rigid plate, wherein when assembled the first rigid plate and the second rigid plate are mirror images of one another The accused wallet consists of two rigid plates which the complaint alleges are mirror images. ¶59 col. 5:6-10
wherein the first rigid plate and the second rigid plate each include a first lamina and a second lamina Each plate is alleged to be constructed from two layers, or laminae. ¶59 col. 4:52-57
wherein the first lamina includes a longitudinal groove and at least one threaded hole, and the second lamina includes at least one countersunk hole The inner lamina allegedly has a groove for the elastic band and a threaded hole, while the outer lamina has a countersunk hole for a screw. ¶59 col. 4:46-48
at least one encircling elastic band housed within the longitudinal groove to bias the first rigid plate and the second rigid plate inwardly An elastic band allegedly sits inside the longitudinal groove and wraps around the plates to hold them together and provide expandable volume. ¶59 col. 3:27-30
an elastic strap attached to the encircling elastic band to register the card-like contents An additional elastic strap is allegedly attached to the main band to prevent cards from sliding out. ¶59 col. 5:24-30
a first finger notch adjacent to the elastic strap... a second finger notch adjacent to the elastic strap The plates allegedly feature aligned finger notches to allow a user to push the cards out. ¶59 col. 5:4-10
a money clip removably attached to the first rigid plate or the second rigid plate, wherein the money clip includes a tang insertable into a recess formed inside the first rigid plate or the second rigid plate The accused wallet is sold with a money clip that the complaint alleges is removably attached via a tang that inserts into a recess in the plate. ¶59 col. 6:42-53
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The definition of "register the card-like contents" may be disputed. Does the accused product’s strap perform this specific backstop function, or does it serve another purpose, such as facilitating card removal?
    • Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the accused money clip is "removably attached" in the manner claimed. The complaint asserts it can be removed by pushing (Compl. ¶59, pg. 14), but the specific mechanism of attachment (e.g., the interaction between the "tang" and "recess") will be subject to scrutiny.

’743 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint similarly provides a claim chart for the ’743 Patent, alleging that the cash strap version of the Mountain Voyage Wallet infringes at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶71). The allegations focus on the wallet’s use of a second, external elastic strap instead of a money clip. A key piece of visual evidence is a photograph showing the cash strap accessory removed from the wallet, illustrating how it is allegedly positioned relative to the wallet plates (Compl. ¶71, pg. 19).

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first rigid plate and a second rigid plate interposed to compress card-like contents there between The accused wallet has two rigid plates that sandwich credit cards. ¶71 col. 4:22-26
each of the first rigid plate and the second rigid plate including a first lamina and a second lamina, wherein the first lamina includes a longitudinal grove... Each plate is alleged to have a two-layer construction with an internal groove for the main elastic band. ¶71 col. 4:52-57
at least one encircling elastic band within the longitudinal groove to bias the first rigid plate and the second rigid plate inwardly An internal elastic band is allegedly housed in the groove to provide compressive force and expandability. ¶71 col. 4:35-42
at least a second elastic strap positioned over the outside surface of the first rigid plate and extending at least partially between the first lamina and the second lamina of the first rigid plate The accused wallet's cash strap is alleged to be positioned on the outside of the wallet and anchored in a way that it extends between the wallet's two laminae. ¶71 col. 5:12-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The construction of the phrase "extending at least partially between the first lamina and the second lamina" will be critical. This limitation dictates how the external cash strap must be anchored to the wallet plate. Whether the accused product's physical assembly meets this specific structural requirement is a primary question.
    • Technical Questions: Does the accused cash strap attach in the precise manner required by the claim? The complaint’s visuals suggest the strap is tucked under the outer plate (Compl. ¶71, pg. 19), but a defense may argue this does not constitute "extending... between" the laminae as distinct layers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "removably attached" (’704 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the money clip version. Its construction will determine the required method and ease of attaching and detaching the money clip. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent emphasizes modularity (’704 Patent, col. 3:1-4), suggesting user-interchangeability is an important feature.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a method of "inserting, removably, the... tang" and later "removing, selectively, the first auxiliary feature," without specifying that tools are not required. This may support an interpretation where any non-permanent attachment suffices (’704 Patent, col. 6:46-51).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall context of providing a modular system for a consumer product, where a user can "change out" features, could support an interpretation requiring that the clip be removable by hand without special tools or difficulty (’704 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

  • Term: "extending at least partially between the first lamina and the second lamina" (’743 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific structural anchor point for the external cash strap. Infringement by the accused product hinges on whether its cash strap is physically arranged in this manner.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s figures are schematic, and a party could argue that any configuration where the strap is captured under the outer plate (the second lamina) meets the spirit of the claim, even if not literally sandwiched between two distinct physical layers.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses precise language ("between the first lamina and the second lamina"). The specification describes the second lamina "capping" the first lamina to "capture" the encircling elastic band (’743 Patent, col. 4:43-48). A party could argue this establishes a clear, layered construction that the external strap must also conform to, requiring it to be physically located in the interface between the two laminae.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain explicit counts for indirect or contributory infringement, focusing its allegations on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant had both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit willfulness is based on Defendant's alleged admission of having "emulated" Plaintiff's product and on allegations that Defendant previously altered other products to avoid other Ridge patents (Compl. ¶26, 28). Post-suit willfulness is based on the allegation that Plaintiff sent notice letters to Defendant's General Counsel on the exact day each of the patents-in-suit issued, putting Defendant on "actual, explicit notice" (Compl. ¶49, 50, 63, 75).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the specific structural limitations in the claims, such as the cash strap "extending... between the first lamina and the second lamina" (’743 Patent) and the money clip being "removably attached" (’704 Patent), be interpreted to read on the accused products' designs? The resolution of these terms will likely be dispositive.
  • A second key issue will be a question of fact: does the physical construction of the Mountain Voyage wallets, particularly the attachment mechanisms for the money clip and cash strap, meet the specific limitations of the claims as construed by the court? The complaint’s detailed photographic evidence will be central to this inquiry.
  • Finally, a critical question for damages will be willfulness: given the strong allegations of "emulation" and express notice sent on the day of patent issuance, the court will have to determine whether any infringement was willful, which could lead to enhanced damages.