DCT
1:25-cv-00364
Goruck Holdings LLC v. Wolf Tactical Acquisition Co LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: GORUCK Holdings, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Wolf Tactical Acquisition Company, LLC (Delaware) and Society Brands, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Offit Kurman P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00364, D. Del., 03/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Defendant entities are incorporated or formed in Delaware and reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ weighted rucking backpack infringes a design patent and the distinctive trade dress associated with Plaintiff's own rucking products.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of fitness and recreation equipment, specifically specialized backpacks known as "rucksacks" or "ruck plate carriers" designed to hold weighted plates for exercise.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent notice of infringement to Defendants on September 18, 2024, and sent a second letter on October 29, 2024. Following communications in which Defendants allegedly denied infringement without providing a basis, Plaintiff filed this suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-05-06 | Earliest Patent Priority Date ('877' Patent) |
| 2021-06-01 | GORUCK began marketing its unique GORUCK RPC |
| 2024-07-09 | '877 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-09-18 | GORUCK sent first notice letter to Defendants |
| 2024-10-29 | GORUCK sent second notice letter to Defendants |
| 2024-11-11 | Defendants replied to GORUCK's second letter |
| 2024-12-06 | Defendants' counsel denied infringement |
| 2024-12-18 | Counsel for both parties conferred by telephone |
| 2025-03-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,033,877 - "Backpack for Carrying a Weighted Plate," issued July 9, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Unlike utility patents, design patents do not solve a technical problem. They protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture ('877 Patent, Claim). This patent concerns the specific visual design of a backpack intended for carrying weighted plates (Compl. ¶22).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design embodied in the drawings. The claimed design features a generally rectangular backpack body with a prominent, oversized top closure flap that folds over the front, a distinct lower front portion, and specific proportions and contours as depicted in solid lines ('877 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 10, 12). The description clarifies that elements shown in broken lines, such as shoulder straps and internal features, form no part of the claimed design ('877 Patent, p. 2).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive design of its "Ruck Plate Carrier 3.0" has been integral to the growing popularity of rucking as a fitness activity and that the design is a source-identifier for its brand (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the '877 Patent (Compl. ¶¶51-52).
- The claim is for "The ornamental design for a backpack for carrying a weighted plate, as shown and described" ('877 Patent, Claim).
- The essential elements are the visual characteristics of the backpack shown in the solid-line drawings, including:
- The overall shape and proportions of the main body.
- The configuration of the top closure member.
- The appearance of the front, back, top, bottom, and side profiles.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendants’ "Weighted Rucking Backpack Plate Carrier" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Product is a backpack designed to carry weighted plates for fitness "rucking," sold under the "Wolf Tactical" brand (Compl. ¶5, ¶27). The complaint presents the Accused Product as a direct imitation of GORUCK's design, intended to compete for the same customers (Compl. ¶18).
- The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison alleging that the front view of the Accused Product is virtually identical to the patented design. This comparison highlights the top, closure member, front, and ports of the backpack (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint presents its infringement theory through side-by-side photographic comparisons.
'877 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (as shown in Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature of Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of the front of the backpack, including the top closure flap and main body proportions. | The front of the Accused Product, which is alleged to have the same overall shape, top closure flap configuration, and proportions. | ¶28, p. 6 | Fig. 10 |
| The overall ornamental appearance of the rear of the backpack. | The rear of the Accused Product, alleged to have the same back paneling shape and strap attachment points. | ¶28, p. 6 | Fig. 11 |
| The ornamental appearance of the top of the backpack. | The top view of the Accused Product, alleged to show a similar closure and handle configuration. | ¶28, p. 9 | Fig. 16 |
| The ornamental appearance of the zippered pocket feature. | A zippered pocket on the front of the Accused Product, which the complaint alleges is part of the infringing design. | ¶28, p. 10 | Fig. 18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether an ordinary observer would find the two designs substantially the same, despite minor differences such as the "Wolf Tactical" branding on the Accused Product. The court will need to filter out the functional aspects of the backpack from the purely ornamental features protected by the patent.
- Technical Questions: A factual question is how much the elements shown in broken lines in the patent (e.g., straps, buckles), which are not part of the claimed design, contribute to the overall visual impression of the Accused Product and whether the court can properly disregard them in its analysis. The complaint itself labels unclaimed features like "shoulder straps" and "sternum strap" in its comparison charts, which may introduce ambiguity (Compl. p. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the "claim" is the design itself as depicted in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of words is generally not performed. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.
- The "Term": "The ornamental design ... as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the visual scope of the design claimed in the '877 Patent. The key dispute will be over which visual features are dispositive to the "ordinary observer" and which are minor variations that do not defeat a finding of substantial similarity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff will likely argue that the patented design covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of the rectangular body, the large front flap, and the specific proportions, and that these are all copied in the Accused Product (Compl. ¶29). The complaint’s allegation that the designs are "virtually identical" supports this view (Compl. ¶28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the claim is limited to the exact contours and details shown in the solid lines. They could point to the disclaimer of elements in broken lines as evidence that the patentee deliberately chose to claim a very specific and narrow design ('877 Patent, p. 2, "The broken lines depict portions of the backpack ... that form no part of the claimed design."). Any differences in stitching, texture, or branding on the Accused Product could be argued to place it outside this narrow scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide instructions to customers on how to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner (e.g., with weighted plates) (Compl. ¶¶58, 60). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused Product is especially made or adapted for use with weighted exercise plates to infringe the patent, is not a staple of commerce, and has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶63, 68).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ continued sales after receiving actual notice of the '877 Patent via a letter dated September 18, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶43, 71). The complaint further alleges that Defendants' refusal to provide a basis for their denial of infringement supports a finding of willfulness (Compl. ¶¶47-48, 73).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a classic design patent and trade dress dispute. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of three central questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual scope: In applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the ornamental features of the Accused Product and the '877 Patent's claimed design "substantially the same," or are the differences, such as branding and minor contours, sufficient to distinguish them in the marketplace?
- A second key issue will be the line between ornamental and functional: To what extent are the asserted design features, which are also part of the parallel trade dress claim, dictated by their function? Defendants may argue that the shared features are functional necessities for a weighted plate carrier, and therefore cannot be protected by either the design patent or trade dress.
- Finally, an evidentiary question will center on knowledge and intent: Do the pre-suit communications and Defendants' alleged copying establish the requisite knowledge and intent to support the claims for willful and indirect infringement, particularly if infringement is found to be a close call?