DCT
1:25-cv-01359
STX LLC v. Stringking Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: STX, LLC (Maryland)
- Defendant: StringKing, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01359, D. Del., 11/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant StringKing, Inc. being a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Flyer1" lacrosse glove infringes a patent related to a stitchless, molded construction for the protective padding on the back of a sports glove.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns manufacturing methods for protective sports equipment, aiming to improve flexibility and tactile feel without sacrificing protection, a key consideration in sports like lacrosse that require fine motor control.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,201,744. The complaint alleges Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of the patented technology during the development of the accused product.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-22 | Earliest Patent Priority Date ('’930 Patent) |
| 2025-04-15 | Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 12,274,930 |
| 2025 (Early) | Alleged Launch of Accused "Flyer1" Product |
| 2025-11-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,274,930 - "Stitchless Dorsal Padding For Protective Sports Gloves And Other Protective Gear"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,274,930, "Stitchless Dorsal Padding For Protective Sports Gloves And Other Protective Gear," issued April 15, 2025.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional protective sports gloves utilize a "cut-and-sew" manufacturing process where individual foam pads are stitched between fabric layers (Compl. ¶12; ’930 Patent, col. 1:53-62). This construction is described as being relatively thick and rigid, which can compromise a player's flexibility, grip, and tactile feel for their equipment, while also complicating the manufacturing process (’930 Patent, col. 2:1-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "unitary dorsal panel" for the back of the glove, which is formed as a single, integrally-molded piece (’930 Patent, col. 3:34-39). This panel features an array of distinct foam protective pads, described as "individual islands," that are raised from a common "zero-elevation surface" and separated by narrow "interstitial channels" (’930 Patent, col. 2:25-36). This design, illustrated in Figure 2 of the patent, aims to provide tightly-packed protection while using the thin interstitial channels as flexible hinges to maintain dexterity (’930 Patent, col. 5:61-6:2).
- Technical Importance: This stitchless, molded approach is presented as a way to create protective gear that offers enhanced flexibility and a finer tactile feel, which are critical for performance in stick-handling sports like lacrosse and hockey (Compl. ¶15; ’930 Patent, col. 5:61-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’930 Patent (Compl. ¶19). Independent Claim 1 is representative:
- A protective sports glove with a palmar section and a unitary dorsal panel covering the back of the hand.
- The dorsal panel is an integrally-molded elastomeric member with a main section and adjacent finger sections sharing a common zero-elevation surface.
- It includes a patterned array of foam protective pads, each being an individual island raised from the zero-elevation surface.
- The pads along each finger section are aligned end-to-end and separated by interstitial channels with a width of 1-4 mm.
- A border flange circumscribes the finger sections, protruding outward from the zero-elevation surface.
- The border flange protrudes at an "acute bevel angle" relative to the zero-elevation surface around at least four adjacent finger sections.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the StringKing "Flyer1" lacrosse glove (Compl. ¶5, ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Flyer1 glove incorporates a "back of hand design that infringes on one or more of the claims of the ’930 patent" (Compl. ¶17). The product is marketed with claims of an "innovative design [that] revolutionizes stick handling, providing unmatched feel," positioning it as a high-performance glove directly in competition with the Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶17, ¶19). The complaint includes an annotated version of the patent's Figure 2 to illustrate the components of the invention, implying these components are present in the accused glove (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in an un-provided "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶17). However, the complaint's narrative alleges that the accused product's back-of-hand design embodies the features described in the patent's Summary of the Invention, which it quotes at length (Compl. ¶14). The following table synthesizes these narrative allegations against the elements of independent claim 1.
U.S. Patent No. 12,274,930 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a unitary dorsal panel configured to...cover the back of said wearer's hand including at least four fingers, the dorsal panel consisting of an integrally-molded elastomeric member formed with a main section and adjacent finger sections... | The accused glove allegedly has a back-of-hand design featuring a unitary dorsal panel with a main section and finger sections. | ¶14, ¶17 | col. 2:25-31 |
| ...sharing a common zero-elevation surface and a patterned array of foam protective pads each defining an individual island raised from said zero-elevation surface... | The accused glove allegedly features a "waffle-pattern array of foam protective pads formed as individual islands raised from substantially zero-elevation surface." | ¶14 | col. 2:31-35 |
| ...the foam protective pads within each finger section being aligned end-to-end and separated from adjacent foam protective pads by interstitial channels having a width within a range of from 1-4 mm... | The accused glove's foam pads are allegedly "separated from each other by interstitial channels having a minimum width within a range of 1-4mm." | ¶14 | col. 6:31-35 |
| ...and a border flange circumscribing said finger sections of said dorsal panel, said border flange protruding outward... at an acute bevel angle... around at least four of said adjacent finger sections. | The accused glove allegedly incorporates a "substantially contiguous border flange" that "surrounds the entire unitary dorsal panel and protrudes therefrom at a bevel angle." | ¶14 | col. 2:36-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "unitary dorsal panel" and "integrally-molded." The defense could argue its manufacturing process or assembly of components does not result in a structure that meets the patent's specific definition of "unitary" (e.g., a "one-shot molded...panel" or panels joined by "fusion") (’930 Patent, col. 3:34-39).
- Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the accused Flyer1 glove's construction includes the specific geometric limitations of Claim 1. This includes whether its "interstitial channels" fall within the claimed "1-4 mm" width range and whether its "border flange" protrudes at an "acute bevel angle" as described in the patent. The complaint's annotated diagram of the patent's Figure 2 visually represents these allegedly infringing features (Compl. p. 5).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"unitary dorsal panel"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental structure of the invention. Infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's back-of-hand construction, which may be composed of various materials and layers, constitutes a single "unitary" panel. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides a specific, and potentially limiting, definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The definition allows for a panel "formed by a plurality of such panels integrally joined together by fusion of their synthetic material or by fusion of the foam protective pads to an underlying scrim material" (’930 Patent, col. 3:36-39). This suggests that a panel made of multiple pieces could still be "unitary" if they are fused together.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same definition begins by describing the panel as being "formed as a one-shot molded synthetic panel" (’930 Patent, col. 3:35-36). This could support an argument that the term is limited to single-molded articles, with the "plurality of panels" language covering only minor, fused additions.
"acute bevel angle"
- Context and Importance: This limitation describes a key feature of the border flange, which is designed to prevent interference between adjacent fingers during flexion (Compl. ¶13; ’930 Patent, col. 7:38-48). Whether the accused product's flange has this specific geometry will be a critical infringement question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "acute" generally means less than 90 degrees, providing a wide potential range. Claim 1 requires the bevel only "around at least four of said adjacent finger sections," not necessarily the entire perimeter.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more specific range, stating the "bevel angle from the zero-elevation surface 52 is an acute angle within a range of from 30-60 degrees" (’930 Patent, col. 7:52-54). Figure 9 explicitly contrasts the function of a "Beveled Border flange" with a "Flat bottom," illustrating the functional necessity of the angle (’930 Patent, Fig. 9).
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that StringKing's infringement is "deliberate, willful, wanton, and intentional" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation is based on StringKing having had at least constructive notice of the ’930 Patent since its issuance and continuing to sell the accused product (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint further alleges that during the development of the Flyer1 glove, StringKing showed "a particular interest in STX's RZR model gloves," which embody the patented technology, suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the invention itself (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural definition: does the manufacturing process and final construction of the StringKing Flyer1 glove result in an "integrally-molded" and "unitary dorsal panel" as those terms are specifically defined and described within the ’930 Patent, or does it utilize a distinct assembly method that falls outside the claim scope?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of geometric compliance: can the Plaintiff demonstrate, through measurement and expert testimony, that the accused glove’s design incorporates the precise dimensional and angular limitations of the asserted claims, particularly the "1-4 mm" width of the interstitial channels and the "acute bevel angle" of the border flange?
- Finally, the willfulness claim will depend on a question of knowledge and intent: does the evidence of StringKing's alleged study of STX's commercial products during its own development process establish pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement?