DCT

1:19-cv-00361

Schwendimann v. Neenah Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00361, D. Del., 02/21/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both defendants are incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and thus "reside" in the district for purposes of patent venue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ image transfer paper products for dark fabrics infringe patents related to a single-step method and article for transferring images with an opaque white background onto colored bases.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for customizing apparel and other fabric items, enabling hobbyists and commercial producers to apply high-quality printed images to dark-colored textiles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a prior successful litigation by the plaintiff against a competitor, Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., which may be presented to suggest the strength and validity of the asserted patent family. However, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were subsequently initiated against several asserted patents. Certificates attached to the patents indicate that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE41,623, 7,749,581, and 7,754,042 were cancelled in May 2024. Conversely, an ex parte reexamination certificate for U.S. Patent No. 7,771,554 confirmed the patentability of asserted Claim 9. These post-filing developments appear to substantially narrow the scope of the ongoing dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’581, ’042, ’554, and RE41,623 Patents
2010-07-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,749,581 Issues
2010-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,754,042 Issues
2010-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,771,554 Issues
2010-09-07 U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE41,623 Issues
2017-01-01 Approximate date of meeting between Avery and Schwendimann (alleged in complaint as "early 2017")
2019-02-21 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,749,581 - *"Image Transfer on a Colored Base"*

  • Issued: July 6, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior art methods for transferring images onto dark fabrics required a cumbersome two-step process: first applying a plain white background layer, and then applying the desired image on top of that background (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). This approach suffered from numerous problems, including poor alignment, extra labor, image sharpness issues, uncomfortable garment rigidity, and a tendency for the transfer to peel after washing (Compl. ¶¶ 18-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an image transfer sheet that incorporates an opaque white layer into the same sheet onto which the image is printed (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31). This allows a user to print an image and transfer both the image and its necessary white background to a dark fabric in a single step using heat (Compl. ¶31). The patent describes a multi-layer structure, typically comprising a removable substrate (e.g., paper), a release coating, a white or luminescent polymer layer, and an indicia-receptive layer on top (’581 Patent, col. 11:15-12:22; Fig. 3A).
  • Technical Importance: This single-sheet solution simplified the process for both commercial manufacturers and at-home hobbyists, making high-quality customization of dark apparel more efficient and accessible (Compl. ¶¶ 31-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Claim 17 essential elements:
    • An image transfer article, comprising:
    • an indicia-receptive layer including at least one surface configured to receive and carry transferable indicia;
    • a removable substrate including a release coating; and
    • a white layer disposed between the indicia-receptive layer and the release coating, the white layer including a white or luminescent pigment providing a substantially opaque, non-transparent background for received indicia
    • and concurrently transferable with received indicia upon, and following, application of heat.
  • The complaint also alleges infringement of other unspecified claims (Compl. ¶101).

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE41,623 - *"Method of Image Transfer on a Colored Base"*

  • Issued: September 7, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’623 Reissue Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’581 Patent: the inefficiency and poor quality of prior two-step methods for applying images to dark fabrics (Compl. ¶¶ 16-22).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims the method of using the single-sheet transfer technology. The method involves providing a colored substrate (like a t-shirt), providing the multi-layer transfer sheet with an opaque layer, peeling away the backing, and applying heat to transfer the image and its background simultaneously (’623 Reissue Patent, col. 12:43-52). The core innovation remains the consolidation of the opaque background and the image into a single, heat-transferable article, eliminating the separate background application step (’623 Reissue Patent, col. 10:14-22).
  • Technical Importance: By patenting the method of use, the invention sought to cover the entire process of creating customized dark garments, not just the transfer sheet article itself (Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Claim 6 essential elements:
    • An image transfer sheet, comprising:
    • a colored substrate comprising woven, fabric based material, or paper;
    • a release layer overlaying the substrate, wherein the release layer is impregnated with titanium oxide or other white pigment or luminescent pigment; and
    • a polymer layer.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of other unspecified claims (Compl. ¶101).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,754,042

  • Title: "Method of Image Transfer on a Colored Base"
  • Issued: July 13, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for making an image transfer article by obtaining a removable substrate, coating it with a release material (e.g., silicone), and overlaying it with one or more polymer layers containing a pigment to create an opaque background (’042 Patent, col. 11:32-48).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant Neenah's manufacturing process for its accused products infringes this method patent (Compl. ¶¶ 60-68).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,771,554

  • Title: "Image Transfer on a Colored Base"
  • Issued: August 10, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of transferring an image to a colored substrate. The method involves providing a transfer sheet with an image-imparting layer, peeling the removable substrate away, and contacting the remaining layers to the substrate to transfer the image and opaque background with heat (’554 Patent, col. 11:42-12:2).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the use of Defendants' products according to their instructions infringes this method patent (Compl. ¶112).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "Neenah's Gold Seal Jet-Opaque II Dark Transfer Paper" and "Avery Dark Fabric Transfers #3279" as the primary accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 73).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are image transfer articles designed for applying images to dark fabrics (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 75). They are alleged to possess a multi-layer structure including a removable backing paper, a release coating, a "white layer," and a layer that receives an image (Compl. ¶¶ 48-53, 76-81). The complaint includes an allegation that the Avery product's white layer is "concurrently transferable with received indicia upon, and following, application of heat" (Compl. ¶82). A product information sheet for the Avery product is referenced in the complaint. (Compl. ¶73, Ex. G).
  • The complaint positions these products as direct competitors to Plaintiff NuCoat's offerings in the dark fabric transfer market (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 72). It is also alleged that Neenah manufactures transfer paper products that are sold under private-label brands such as Avery (Compl. ¶46).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

**7,749,581 Patent Infringement Allegations**

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an indicia-receptive layer including at least one surface configured to receive and carry transferable indicia The accused products have a layer that receives an image. ¶48, ¶76 col. 5:11-15
a removable substrate including a release coating The accused products have a removable backing paper and the removable substrate includes a release coating. ¶49, ¶50, ¶77, ¶78 col. 4:1-10
a white layer disposed between the indicia-receptive layer and the release coating The accused products have a white layer, which is disposed between the indicia-receptive layer and the release coating. ¶51, ¶52, ¶79, ¶80 col. 12:4-7
the white layer including a white or luminescent pigment providing a substantially opaque, non-transparent background The white layer in the accused products has a white or luminescent pigment. ¶53, ¶81 col. 4:32-40
and concurrently transferable with received indicia upon, and following, application of heat The white layer in the accused products is concurrently transferable with received indicia upon, and following, application of heat. ¶54, ¶82 col. 11:15-22

**RE41,623 Reissue Patent Infringement Allegations**

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An image transfer sheet, comprising: a colored substrate comprising woven, fabric based material, or paper This is a method claim directed at the end user; the substrate is the t-shirt or other fabric onto which the transfer sheet is applied. ¶112 col. 3:10-14
a release layer overlaying the substrate, wherein the release layer is impregnated with titanium oxide or other white pigment or luminescent pigment The accused products allegedly have a release layer impregnated with titanium oxide or other white pigment. ¶56, ¶58, ¶84, ¶86 col. 4:11-25
and a polymer layer The accused products allegedly have a polymer layer. ¶59, ¶87 col. 3:2-5

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "disposed between the indicia-receptive layer and the release coating" (’581 Patent, Claim 17). The precise structural arrangement and interface of the layers in the accused products relative to this claim language could be a point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on the accused products containing specific components (e.g., a "polymer layer," a "release layer...impregnated with titanium oxide"). A key evidentiary question will be whether the chemical composition and physical structure of the accused products align with the technical requirements of the claims. For example, does the "release layer" of the accused product itself contain the white pigment as required by Claim 6 of the ’623 Reissue Patent, or is the pigment in a separate "white layer" as described for the ’581 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "white layer"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 17 of the ’581 Patent and is central to the invention's single-step solution. Its definition, particularly its composition and structural relationship to other layers, is critical for determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a single, discrete layer or if its functions can be distributed across multiple films or coatings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the white layer as imparting a "white background on a dark substrate" and being positioned "between a release layer and a receiving layer" (’581 Patent, col. 3:33-36). This functional description could support a construction that encompasses any structure performing that role.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's embodiments describe the white layer as containing specific materials, such as "ethylene/methacrylic acid (E/MAA)" and pigments like titanium oxide, with specific coating thicknesses ranging from "0.5 to 7 mils" (’581 Patent, col. 4:48-52; col. 6:7-9). These specific examples may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to layers with similar characteristics.

The Term: "concurrently transferable"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation in Claim 17 of the ’581 Patent distinguishes the invention from the prior art two-step process. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products' white background and image transfer in a single, unified heating step, as the claim requires.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the process as applying heat so that "an image is transferred... The image transferred comprises a substantially white or luminescent background and indicia" (’581 Patent, col. 2:59-63). This suggests the core concept is the simultaneous result, not necessarily the specific mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the single step ensures "the image and background are adhered to the colored base in a single step" (Compl. ¶31, citing the invention's process). This language, focusing on a single action leading to a single adhesion event, could support a narrower reading that excludes processes where layers might melt or adhere sequentially, even if during a single heating cycle.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants cause end consumers to directly infringe by "selling and/or offering for sale image transfer sheets to end consumers with explicit instructions to use the image transfer sheets in a manner that Defendant knows to be infringing" (Compl. ¶112).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. For Neenah, it is alleged that Plaintiff Schwendimann previously told Neenah's current VP for New Business & Technology Development, Bob Conforti, about her dark fabric transfer patents (Compl. ¶70). For Avery, knowledge is alleged based on a long-standing relationship and a meeting in "early 2017" where Schwendimann provided Avery with a product sample and a "list of her patents in transfer papers" (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 92).

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

Given the complaint's allegations and the subsequent procedural history, the case appears to present several critical questions for resolution:

  • A primary threshold question is one of patent survival: With the asserted claims of the ’581, ’042, and RE41,623 patents having been cancelled via IPR, can the plaintiff's case proceed on any basis other than the asserted claims of the ’554 patent, whose validity was confirmed in a separate reexamination?
  • A core issue of claim scope will be central to the remaining ’554 patent: How will the court construe the method steps recited in the claims, and do the instructions for use of the accused products direct users to perform each of those claimed steps?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: What evidence will the parties present to establish the precise chemical composition and physical layered structure of the accused transfer sheets, and does that structure meet the specific limitations recited in any surviving patent claims?