DCT

3:23-cv-01349

Veto Pro Pac LLC v. Velocity Workwear Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-01349, D. Conn., 12/15/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper as Defendants have marketed to, offered to sell, and sold products to customers in Connecticut, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ professional tool bags and backpacks infringe two utility patents and one design patent related to structural design, internal organization, and portability.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns durable, highly organized tool-carrying solutions, such as bags and backpacks, designed for trade professionals who require both protection for their tools and hands-free mobility in various work environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a notice letter to Defendant Velocity on November 30, 2020, identifying the ’301 and ’902 patents. A second letter was sent on June 13, 2022, which also identified the ’507 design patent. These communications may be central to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-10-02 '902 Patent Application Date (Earliest Priority)
2005-07-12 '902 Patent Issue Date
2007-05-30 '507 Patent Application Date (Earliest Priority)
2010-04-13 '507 Patent Issue Date
2013-02-26 '301 Patent Priority Date
2016-05-24 '301 Patent Issue Date
2020-11-30 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2022-06-13 Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant
2022-11-XX '902 Patent Expiration
2023-12-15 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,345,301 - "Supported Composite Tool Pack"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,345,301, "Supported Composite Tool Pack," issued May 24, 2016. (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty for service personnel in transporting tools to varied and often restricted work areas, such as rooftops or tunnels, where hands-free mobility is necessary for safety and access. ('301 Patent, col. 1:20-34). Traditional tool boxes are cumbersome, and soft bags can lead to disorganization and damage to tools. ('301 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a backpack-style tool carrier featuring a composite structure that combines a molded plastic base with a durable fabric body. A "substantially rigid support panel" acts as an internal spine, dividing the pack into compartments and ensuring it remains upright and stable, thereby protecting the contents and providing easy access. ('301 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-57). This configuration is designed to provide a "stable, protected work platform no matter the environment." ('301 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The design integrates the ergonomic benefits of a backpack with the structural integrity of a rigid container, addressing a need for organized, protected, and hands-free tool transport for mobile technicians. ('301 Patent, col. 1:35-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 12-15. (Compl. ¶¶33, 35).
  • Independent claim 12 recites the core elements of the tool pack, including:
    • A "substantially rigid concave base" with a peripheral wall and lip.
    • A "fabric bag body" coupled to the base's lip.
    • A "generally rigid support panel" that divides the interior space into two compartments.
    • "Organizational structures" (e.g., pockets) on the support panel.
    • Two "reversible closure mechanisms" (e.g., zippers) for accessing the compartments.
    • A "central portion" of the bag body connecting the closure mechanisms.
    • A "pair of load positioning straps" extending from the backpack straps to the central portion/handle assembly, spanning one of the closure mechanisms.

U.S. Patent No. 6,915,902 - "Tool Bag"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,915,902, "Tool Bag," issued July 12, 2005. (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background notes that typical rigid tool boxes result in a "disorganized mass of tools," while purely fabric bags are easily damaged by the sharp edges of the tools they are meant to carry. ('902 Patent, col. 1:18-23, 42-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a tool bag constructed with a central panel that bifurcates the interior, allowing for organized, vertical tool storage. A key feature is a "tool deflector," which is a hard surface (e.g., plastic) integrated with the central panel to form the back of tool pockets, preventing sharp tools from piercing or damaging the fabric body upon insertion or removal. ('902 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-35).
  • Technical Importance: This patent discloses a hybrid construction that provides the organizational benefits of vertical pockets while solving the durability problem of fabric bags by selectively reinforcing them against damage from sharp tools. ('902 Patent, col. 2:15-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-7, seeking past damages for infringement that occurred prior to the patent's expiration in November 2022. (Compl. ¶¶39, 41, 43).
  • Independent claim 1 recites the essential elements of the tool bag, including:
    • A "bag bottom having a flat surface."
    • A "bag body" with a centrally positioned "fabric body portion."
    • A "plurality of pockets" within the interior area.
    • A "central, generally rigid panel-like member" that is cooperative with the fabric body to "bifurcate an interior area... into only two interior compartments."
    • A "single handle hingedly attached" to the fabric body and positioned centrally.

U.S. Design Patent No. D613,507 - "Open Top Carrier"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D613,507, "Open Top Carrier," issued April 13, 2010. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: The '507 patent protects the ornamental design for an open-top tool carrier. The claimed design features include the overall rectangular tub-like shape with rounded corners, a prominent, centrally located, molded handle that rises above the body, and the visual arrangement of external pockets and panels.
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim of the '507 patent is asserted. (Compl. ¶¶47-48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of the "Rogue PB 8.0 bag" and the "Rogue 3.0 open tote" infringes the claimed design. (Compl. ¶¶48, 50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Rogue 4.5 backpack," "Rogue 5.0 backpack," "Rogue PB 8.0 bag," and "Rogue 3.0 open tote," including "variations thereof," as the accused instrumentalities. (Compl. ¶¶33, 35, 41, 48, 50).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants' products are tool bags and backpacks that "systematically duplicat[e] Plaintiff’s product offerings and imitat[e] Plaintiff." (Compl. ¶18). The products are allegedly marketed and sold to customers in the United States, including within the District of Connecticut, through Defendants' websites and distributors. (Compl. ¶¶8, 22, 28-29). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide claim charts or detailed mapping of accused product features to claim limitations. The following tables summarize the allegations based on the asserted claims and the named products.

'301 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a substantially rigid concave base... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶33, ¶35 col. 2:40-45
a fabric bag body permanently coupled to said peripheral lip... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶33, ¶35 col. 2:50-57
a generally rigid support panel dividing said interior space into two compartments... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶33, ¶35 col. 3:3-5
a plurality of organizational structures arranged on at least one side of said support panel... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶33, ¶35 col. 3:45-51
two reversible closure mechanisms... permitting access to one of said compartments... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶33, ¶35 col. 3:7-9
a pair of load positioning straps... extending from one of said backpack straps to said handle base... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶33, ¶35 col. 4:55-58

'902 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a bag bottom having a flat surface; The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶41, ¶43 col. 2:47-50
a bag body... including at least one fabric body portion positioned substantially centrally... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶41, ¶43 col. 3:50-55
a central, generally rigid panel-like member... to bifurcate an interior area... into only two interior compartments; The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶41, ¶43 col. 4:6-9
a single handle hingedly attached to said fabric body portion... The complaint alleges the accused Rogue 4.5 and 5.0 backpacks possess this feature. ¶41, ¶43 col. 4:49-56
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes general allegations of infringement against named products without providing specific factual support, such as annotated images or feature-by-feature descriptions, to substantiate how each accused product meets every claim limitation. This raises the question of whether the pleadings meet the plausibility standard required by federal rules.
    • Technical Questions ('301 Patent): A potential dispute may arise over the "load positioning straps." Infringement may depend on whether the straps on the accused backpacks are shown to span a closure mechanism and connect the backpack straps to the handle assembly in a manner that transfers load away from the zipper, as taught by the patent.
    • Technical Questions ('902 Patent): A key point of contention for the ’902 patent will likely be the limitation "bifurcate an interior area... into only two interior compartments." The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused products' internal construction is strictly limited to two primary compartments created by the central panel, or if they contain additional dividers creating more than two such areas.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '301 Patent:

  • The Term: "load positioning straps" (Claim 12)
  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to one of the patent's key structural innovations: transferring the pack's weight from the fabric and zippers directly to the handle assembly and backpack harness. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a generic reinforcing strap meets the claim, or if a more specific load-bearing connection is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined. A party could argue that any strap connecting the harness area to the upper pack body that helps position the load qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures show a specific arrangement where straps (64) connect the backpack straps (20) to a metal hasp (66) that latches onto the handle assembly's hinge pin (68). ('301 Patent, Fig. 2-4; col. 4:55-61). This detailed embodiment suggests the straps perform a specific, structural function of "support[ing] the weight of the pack directly from the hinge pin." ('301 Patent, col. 4:50-53).

For the '902 Patent:

  • The Term: "into only two interior compartments" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is a potentially significant limitation on the scope of the claim. The viability of the infringement claim may depend entirely on whether the accused products are found to have exactly two main compartments as defined by the central panel, or more.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's focus is on the primary bifurcation created by the central panel. ('902 Patent, col. 2:60-63). A party might argue that smaller, ancillary pockets or sections do not constitute additional "compartments" for the purpose of this limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "only two" is precise and restrictive. The specification reinforces this by describing the "design and construction of the tool bag... on each side of the central panel is approximately identical," which supports the concept of a singular bifurcation into two mirrored halves. ('902 Patent, col. 4:7-9).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for all asserted patents, stating Defendants induced others to sell or import the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶34, 42, 49). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the element of intent, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patents at least as of the November 30, 2020 and June 13, 2022 notice letters. (Compl. ¶¶20, 23). It further alleges that Defendants continued their accused activities after receiving these notices. (Compl. ¶¶22, 26). This pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for a potential finding of willfulness and a request for enhanced damages and attorney fees. (Compl. p.14, ¶¶6-8).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Do the complaint's conclusory infringement allegations, which lack specific factual mapping or visual evidence, satisfy the plausibility standard, or will they be susceptible to an early motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?
  • The case may also turn on a question of definitional strictness: For the ’902 patent, can the phrase "only two interior compartments" be interpreted to read on a tool bag that may have a primary central divider but also other structural sub-divisions, or does the claim require a strict bifurcation with no other major partitioned areas?
  • A key technical question for the ’301 patent will be one of functional scope: Do the straps on the accused backpacks perform the specific structural function of the claimed "load positioning straps" by transferring weight directly from the pack’s main structure to the user’s harness, or do they serve a more general purpose that falls outside the scope of the claims as construed in light of the specification?