DCT
1:23-cv-00772
AAVN Inc v. Welspun Global Brands Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AAVN, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: Welspun Global Brands Limited (India) and Welspun USA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; Covington & Burling LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00772, D. Del., 07/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on a prior Settlement Agreement between the parties, which specified that any disputes relating to the agreement would be resolved exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s high-thread-count cotton-polyester bedsheet products, and the process for making them, infringe patents related to manufacturing techniques for woven textile fabrics.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for creating woven fabrics that are simultaneously high-thread-count, comfortable, and durable by weaving multiple fine polyester yarns in parallel.
- Key Procedural History: The parties were previously involved in litigation concerning the ’790 Patent in the USITC and S.D.N.Y. in 2015, which was resolved by a Settlement Agreement in May 2016. The complaint alleges this history establishes Defendant's knowledge of the patent family, which is relevant to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-08-15 | Priority Date for ’790 and ’337 Patents |
| 2015-09-15 | Plaintiff sends demand letter to Defendant regarding ’790 Patent |
| 2015-10-15 | Defendant files declaratory judgment action regarding ’790 Patent |
| 2015-11-12 | Plaintiff files ITC complaint alleging infringement of ’790 Patent |
| 2016-05-19 | Parties enter into Settlement Agreement resolving prior disputes |
| 2020-10-20 | U.S. Patent No. 10,808,337 Issues |
| 2023-06-22 | Plaintiff sends notice and demand letter regarding current dispute |
| 2023-07-14 | Complaint Filed |
| 2023-11-24 | Alleged retail sale date for Accused Products ("Black Friday") |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,131,790 - "Proliferated thread count of a woven textile by simultaneous insertion within a single pick insertion event of a loom apparatus multiple adjacent parallel yarns drawn from a multi-pick yarn package," Issued September 15, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of manufacturing fabrics that combine the comfort of high-thread-count cotton with the durability of polyester (Compl. ¶¶16-17). Prior to the invention, it was challenging to use very fine polyester yarns in looms because they were prone to breaking, which limited the achievable thread count and forced a trade-off between luxury and strength (’790 Patent, col. 1:61-68; Compl. ¶20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a woven fabric structure created by a novel weaving method. Instead of using a single weft yarn per loom pass, the method involves drawing multiple fine polyester weft yarns from a "multi-pick yarn package" and inserting them simultaneously and in parallel across the warp yarns in a single pass (a "single pick insertion event") (’790 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-53). This achieves a high density of weft yarns (and thus a high thread count) without relying on a single, fragile yarn, thereby overcoming the breakage problem (’790 Patent, Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled the commercial production of high-thread-count (e.g., 1,000 TC) cotton-polyester fabrics that are both luxurious to the touch and durable enough for rigorous use and cleaning (Compl. ¶21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Claims 1-3 of the ’790 Patent (Compl. ¶45). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim asserted.
- Independent Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim directed to a woven textile fabric comprising:
- From 90 to 235 ends per inch warp yarns;
- From 100 to 765 picks per inch multi-filament polyester weft yarns;
- Wherein the picks are woven in groups of at least two multi-filament polyester weft yarns running parallel to each other;
- Wherein the weft yarns are wound substantially parallel and adjacent on a "multi-pick yarn package" to enable their simultaneous insertion during a single pick insertion event;
- Wherein the number of weft yarns conveyed per insertion event is between two and eight; and
- Wherein the pick insertion apparatus is an air jet pick insertion apparatus.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶45).
U.S. Patent No. 10,808,337 - "Proliferated thread count of a woven textile by simultaneous insertion within a single pick insertion event of a loom apparatus multiple adjacent parallel yarns drawn from a multi-pick yarn package," Issued October 20, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’337 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’790 Patent: the trade-off between comfort and durability in cotton-synthetic fabrics due to the difficulty of weaving with fine polyester yarns (’337 Patent, col. 1:40-52, col. 2:5-12).
- The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming the final fabric structure, this patent claims the method of manufacturing it. The claimed process includes specific steps for preparing the yarn, such as drawing partially oriented yarns, texturizing them by twisting and detwisting, and applying a counter-twist with air pressure (’337 Patent, Abstract). These prepared yarns are then wound together onto a multi-pick package and woven using the simultaneous, parallel insertion technique, as detailed in Figure 2 of the patent (’337 Patent, col. 4:11-51).
- Technical Importance: This patent protects the specific manufacturing process that creates yarns with the right properties to be successfully woven into the high-thread-count fabrics described in the patent family (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least Claims 1, 4, and 9 of the ’337 Patent (Compl. ¶72). Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
- Independent Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the steps of:
- Drawing multiple partially oriented yarns to form oriented yarns;
- Twisting and detwisting filaments within the yarns to provide texture;
- Applying uniform air pressure to provide a counter-twist;
- Forming a multi-pick yarn package by winding the prepared yarns together onto a spool;
- Simultaneously inserting the weft yarns from the package in a single pick insertion event;
- Conveying the inserted yarns across a warp shed; and
- Interlacing the warp and weft yarns to produce a woven textile fabric.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶72).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Products are "certain 1,000 thread count, Chief Value Cotton [CVC] bedsheet products" manufactured and sold by Welspun (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products are polyester-cotton blend fabrics with a 1,000 thread count (Compl. ¶46). To achieve this high thread count, the complaint alleges on information and belief that Welspun must use a manufacturing process that infringes the Asserted Patents, specifically by inserting multiple parallel polyester weft yarns in each pass of the loom (Compl. ¶¶32, 47-48). The complaint alleges these products were sold to a major U.S. retailer for its "popular 2023 Black Friday sale," displacing an expected order for Plaintiff's own products and suggesting significant commercial value (Compl. ¶¶29-30).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’790 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a woven textile fabric comprising: from 90 to 235 ends per inch warp yarns; and from 100 to 765 picks per inch multi-filament polyester weft yarns | The Accused Products are alleged to be a 1,000 thread count CVC product with approximately 200-235 ends per inch of cotton warp yarn and approximately 680-750 picks per inch of multi-filament polyester weft yarns. | ¶46 | col. 2:26-28 |
| wherein the picks are woven into the textile fabric in groups of at least two multi-filament polyester weft yarns running parallel to each other | During manufacture, picks are allegedly woven in groups of at least two parallel multi-filament polyester weft yarns, which the complaint claims is necessary to produce a 1,000 thread count fabric. | ¶47 | col. 10:45-53 |
| wherein the multi-filament polyester weft yarns are wound substantially parallel to one another and substantially adjacent to one another on a multi-pick yarn package to enable the simultaneous inserting | The Accused Products are allegedly made using multi-filament polyester weft yarns wound on a multi-pick yarn package to enable simultaneous insertion, which the complaint claims is the only way to achieve a 1,000 thread count CVC fabric without manufacturing failures. | ¶48 | col. 2:57-62 |
| wherein the number of the multi-filament polyester weft yarns conveyed by the pick insertion apparatus... is between two and eight | The number of weft yarns conveyed per insertion is alleged to be between two and eight, inferred from the fact that a different configuration would fail to meet the quality standards of the major retailer who purchased the Accused Products. | ¶50 | col. 3:1-4 |
| wherein the pick insertion apparatus of the loom apparatus is an air jet pick insertion apparatus | The pick insertion apparatus is alleged to be an air jet loom, which is described as the industry standard for high thread count CVC products and the only feasible method. | ¶51 | col. 3:5-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint's allegations regarding the manufacturing process (e.g., use of a "multi-pick yarn package," "simultaneous insertion") are based on "information and belief" and technical inference that this is the only commercially viable method to produce the accused 1,000 TC sheets (Compl. ¶48, 49). A key point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce direct evidence from discovery to prove that Defendant’s process, which occurs in India, actually meets these limitations.
- Scope Question (Product-by-Process): Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim, which is construed to cover the product itself, regardless of the method of manufacture. However, the process limitations in the claim (e.g., "wound...on a multi-pick yarn package") serve to define the claimed structure. The dispute may turn on whether the structure of the accused fabric (e.g., the parallel and untwisted nature of the weft yarns) necessarily reflects the claimed process.
’337 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| drawing each of multiple partially oriented yarns from a corresponding supply package to form an oriented yarn | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are made by a process that includes drawing multiple partially oriented yarns, as this is a necessary predicate to creating the fine polyester yarns used. | ¶72 | col. 15:35-39 |
| twisting and detwisting filaments within the formed oriented yarn to provide texture thereto | The complaint alleges the process involves twisting and detwisting 100% polyester filaments, asserting this step is commercially and technically necessary to develop yarns of sufficient fineness for high thread count CVC products. | ¶73 | col. 15:39-44 |
| forming a multi-pick yarn package based on winding all formed oriented yarns... onto a spool | The Accused Products are allegedly made using a "multi-pick filament yarn package" that serves as the weft yarns, a step the complaint claims is necessary to make high thread count CVC products commercially feasible. | ¶75 | col. 15:50-57 |
| simultaneously inserting the weft yarns in a single pick insertion event of a pick insertion apparatus of a loom apparatus | The complaint alleges the process includes the simultaneous insertion of weft yarns in a single pick insertion event, without which a 1,000 thread count CVC fabric "cannot be achieved." | ¶76 | col. 15:57-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Jurisdictional Question (271(g)): Since the accused manufacturing occurs in India, infringement of these method claims depends on 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which governs importation of a product made by a patented process. The analysis will focus entirely on the specific steps of Welspun's foreign manufacturing process.
- Technical Question: As with the ’790 patent, the infringement case hinges on proving what happens inside Welspun's factories. The complaint alleges the claimed steps (e.g., "twisting and detwisting," applying "uniform air pressure") are performed because they are technically necessary (Compl. ¶73, 74). The central dispute will be over the evidence of what process Welspun actually uses.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "multi-pick yarn package"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and is foundational to the claimed invention. It describes the source of the weft yarns for the novel weaving process. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a neologism whose scope is defined entirely by the patent's specification, and its construction will determine whether the defendant's weft yarn source falls within the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require a functional outcome—a package that enables the "simultaneous inserting" of multiple yarns—without reciting a specific structure (’790 Patent, col. 13:5-9). This may support a construction covering any yarn source that achieves this function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict multiple yarns being wound together onto a single bobbin or spool (’790 Patent, Fig. 1, 3; col. 12:35-37). This could support a narrower construction requiring a single, unitary package, potentially excluding arrangements that use multiple, separate-but-coordinated spools.
The Term: "running parallel to each other"
- Context and Importance: This phrase in Claim 1 of the ’790 Patent distinguishes the invention from prior art fabrics made with plied or twisted yarns. The required degree of "parallelism" is critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "parallel" simply means the yarns are not intentionally twisted together, allowing for some incidental contact or overlap that naturally occurs during high-speed weaving.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts its invention with twisted yarns, which were deemed deceptive to consumers (’790 Patent, col. 2:1-14). The figures also depict a highly ordered, side-by-side arrangement (’790 Patent, Fig. 6). This may support a stricter construction that requires the yarns to maintain a distinct, side-by-side relationship in the final fabric.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Welspun induced infringement by its U.S. retail customer. The alleged acts of inducement include supplying the Accused Products to the retailer and providing information to advertise and promote their sale in the U.S., all with knowledge of the Asserted Patents and with the specific intent to cause infringing sales (Compl. ¶¶58, 81).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. For the ’790 Patent, knowledge is alleged to stem from the 2015-2016 litigation and subsequent settlement (Compl. ¶62). For the ’337 Patent, issued in 2020, the complaint alleges knowledge arose from Welspun's monitoring of AAVN’s patent applications in a competitive field, or, alternatively, from willful blindness to the existence of related patents (Compl. ¶¶85-86).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Proof: A primary issue will be evidentiary. Given that the accused manufacturing occurs in India, the case will likely turn on what evidence Plaintiff can obtain through discovery to prove that Welspun’s confidential manufacturing process uses the specific yarn preparation and weaving steps (e.g., "simultaneous insertion" from a "multi-pick yarn package") required by the asserted claims.
- Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be one of claim construction, focusing on whether the term "multi-pick yarn package" requires yarns to be wound on a single, unitary spool, and how much deviation is permitted from the "running parallel" limitation. The resolution of these terms will be pivotal in determining the scope of the invention and whether Welspun’s technology infringes.
- Willfulness and Prior Conduct: A key question for damages will be willfulness. The court will have to consider whether Welspun’s knowledge of the ’790 Patent from prior litigation creates an enhanced duty of care regarding related, later-issuing patents like the ’337 Patent, and whether Welspun can establish a good-faith belief of non-infringement for its current products.