DCT
1:17-cv-00595
Hanesbrands Inc v. Jacques Moret Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hanesbrands Inc. (Maryland)
- Defendant: Jacques Moret, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00595, D. Del., 05/23/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and, on information and belief, derives revenue from sales of the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Jockey® brand sports bras infringe a patent related to the construction of seamless, double-layered brassieres.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the manufacturing of seamless apparel, specifically technology for creating comfortable, multi-layered garments from a single, integrally-knit piece of fabric.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit prior to the lawsuit, based on correspondence Plaintiff sent to Defendant's licensor, Jockey International, Inc., on or before March 28, 2017. This allegation may form the basis for claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-04-28 | ’664 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-10-03 | ’664 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-03-28 | Date on or before which Defendant allegedly received notice of infringement via its licensor |
| 2017-05-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,125,664 - "BRASSIERE, BRASSIERE BLANK AND METHODS OF MAKING SAME," Issued October 3, 2000
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a deficiency in prior art seamless brassieres, which were typically formed from a single fabric layer. This required a design compromise where the yarns and knit stitches selected for strength and support were not necessarily ideal for comfort against the wearer's skin (’664 Patent, col. 2:27-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a brassiere constructed from a single, continuous, integral cylindrical blank that creates a double-layered garment (’664 Patent, Abstract). The key innovation is forming an inner fabric layer and an outer fabric layer that are seamlessly joined at a "turned welt" or waistband. This allows the inner fabric to be made with yarns and stitches selected specifically for softness and moisture-wicking properties, while the outer fabric can be separately designed for strength, support, or aesthetics (’664 Patent, col. 2:45-51; col. 3:23-31). Figure 3 illustrates a cross-section showing the distinct outer fabric (20) and inner fabric (50).
- Technical Importance: This double-layer construction method allowed for the creation of seamless garments with differentiated performance characteristics, enhancing comfort without sacrificing support.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (’664 Patent, Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A brassiere formed from an integral circular blank
- A turned welt having a torso encircling shape
- A torso part having an outer fabric and an inner fabric
- The outer fabric and inner fabric each have a torso encircling shape and a lower edge that is seamlessly joined to the turned welt
- The outer fabric is formed with one or more types of yarn and knit stitches
- The inner fabric is formed with a yarn selected for softness and wicking of moisture
- The outer fabric and inner fabric form a double layer that provides strength and comfort
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Jockey® brand bra styles JK-8791/333 and JK-8973 (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are brassieres sold by Jacques Moret under license from Jockey International, Inc. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint describes the accused bras as being "formed from an integral circular blank" and having a double-layer construction, with an inner and outer fabric layer seamlessly joined to a "turned welt" at the bottom of the garment (Compl. ¶19). A photograph of the accused product style JK-8791/333 is provided, showing a seamless sports bra design (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges these bras are advertised and sold for activewear (Compl. ¶40).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’664 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A brassiere formed from an integral circular blank | The complaint asserts the accused Jockey® brand bra style JK-8791/333 is a brassiere "formed from an integral circular blank." | ¶19, ¶20 | col. 4:25-29 |
| a turned welt having a torso encircling shape | The accused bra allegedly includes "a knit body having a turned welt forming a torso band having a torso encircling shape." A photograph depicts a "Turned welt at bottom edge." | ¶19, ¶21; p. 5 | col. 3:40-42 |
| a torso part having an outer fabric and an inner fabric | The accused bra is alleged to have "an inner fabric layer and an outer fabric layer extending continuously from the turned welt to form a body portion." | ¶19, ¶22 | col. 3:50-53 |
| said outer fabric and said inner fabric each having a torso encircling shape and a lower edge that is seamlessly joined to said turned welt | The complaint alleges the layers each have a lower edge that is "seamlessly joined to the turned welt." A photograph highlights the "Seamless knit between welt and fabric." | ¶19, ¶24; p. 5 | col. 4:43-48 |
| said inner fabric having one or more knit stitches, and being formed with a yarn selected for softness, and wicking of moisture | The complaint does not specify the yarn type or wicking properties of the inner layer, but alleges infringement of the claim containing this limitation. | ¶18 | col. 3:13-17 |
| wherein said outer fabric and said inner fabric form a double layer that provides strength and comfort to the brassiere | The complaint states, "The outer fabric layer and the inner fabric layer form a double layer." | ¶19 | col. 4:49-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "integral circular blank." The infringement analysis will depend on whether the defendant's manufacturing process, which is not detailed in the complaint, qualifies as starting from such a blank as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The allegation that the welt and fabric layers are "seamlessly joined" may be a point of dispute. The complaint supports this with a photograph showing a smooth transition (Compl. p. 5), but the precise knitting technique used by the defendant will be critical. The court will need to determine if the defendant's method of joining the layers meets the "seamless" limitation as defined by the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "seamlessly joined"
Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the invention, distinguishing it from prior art garments that were cut and sewn together. The infringement case hinges on whether the connection between the welt and the two fabric layers in the accused bras meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific knitting method used to form the junction will determine infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the phrase "integrally joined...in a seamless manner" (’664 Patent, col. 3:55-56) and "integrally joined...without any seam" (’664 Patent, col. 3:10-11), which could suggest any joining method that avoids a traditional sewn seam might suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the manufacturing method suggests a continuous process on a circular knitting machine where the welt and torso parts are knit sequentially into a single piece (’664 Patent, col. 4:1-12, col. 5:10-17). This could support a narrower definition requiring the elements to be formed in a continuous, uninterrupted knitting operation.
The Term: "integral circular blank"
Context and Importance: The preamble of Claim 1 requires the brassiere to be "formed from an integral circular blank." If the accused products are not made from such a blank, they cannot infringe. The dispute will likely focus on what "integral" means in the context of a knitted textile product.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the blank simply as being "formed in a generally cylindrical shape," which might be argued to cover various methods of producing a tube of fabric.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the blank as "a continuous integral cylindrical blank that is formed on a high speed circular knitting machine" (’664 Patent, col. 4:25-29). This language, particularly "continuous" and the reference to a specific machine type, suggests a unitary item produced in a single process, not multiple pieces joined together to form a blank.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Jacques Moret encourages and instructs customers and retailers to use the accused bras through advertising and promotion, including via its website (Compl. ¶¶39-40).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’664 Patent. The complaint alleges that Jacques Moret had actual knowledge since "at least its receipt of Hanesbrands’ correspondence to Jockey International, Inc." which occurred on or before March 28, 2017, and that its continued infringement is egregious and objectively reckless (Compl. ¶¶37, 43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of manufacturing process versus claim scope: Does the defendant's method for constructing its bras, particularly the junction between the waistband and the body, fall within the scope of the term "seamlessly joined" as it is defined by the patent? This will require a detailed technical comparison between the accused product's construction and the patent's teachings.
- A second key issue is evidentiary and definitional: Can the plaintiff prove that the accused bras are "formed from an "integral circular blank""? The case may turn on whether the defendant's starting material and initial manufacturing steps align with the patent's description of creating a unitary, double-layered cylindrical blank.
- Finally, a central question for damages will be willfulness: Did the alleged pre-suit notice to Defendant's licensor, Jockey International, establish the knowledge and intent required for a finding of willful infringement, potentially leading to enhanced damages?