DCT

1:24-cv-00136

ZipString LLC v. NxtGen Toys LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00136, N.D. Ga., 01/10/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ business activities in Georgia and Defendant NxtGen having previously filed a related Declaratory Judgment action in the same judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Loop Lasso" string-shooting toy infringes a patent related to devices that propel a specially-textured string to create a "floating" visual effect.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld toys that launch a continuous loop of string, which, due to specific aerodynamic properties, can maintain its shape and appear to suspend in mid-air.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history between the parties, including that Defendant Sadigursky was a backer of Plaintiff's Kickstarter campaign. Plaintiff also notes it sent a cease-and-desist letter and filed a complaint through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program. In response, Defendant NxtGen filed a Declaratory Judgment action for non-infringement of the same patent, which allegedly stayed the APEX proceeding and precipitated the current lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-08-12 Plaintiff's ZipString product video goes viral on social media.
2021-08-24 Defendant Sadigursky allegedly posts images of a "LoopLasso" prototype.
2021-09-07 Plaintiff's Kickstarter campaign begins.
2021-09-10 Defendant Sadigursky allegedly pledges support as a Kickstarter backer.
2021-11-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,674,774.
2021-12-11 Alleged first offer for sale of the accused LoopLasso device.
2023-03-08 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendants.
2023-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,674,774 issues.
2023-10-27 Plaintiff files an Amazon APEX complaint against Defendant Live Gleam.
2023-11-20 Defendant NxtGen Toys files a Declaratory Judgment action.
2024-01-10 Complaint for Patent Infringement is filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,674,774 - "String Shooting Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,674,774, "String Shooting Device," issued June 13, 2023 (the “’774 Patent”). (Compl. ¶14).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes the challenge of propelling a flexible member like a string, as its inherent flexibility causes it to succumb to gravity and drop over a short distance. (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, col. 1:21-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a device that propels a continuous loop of string using at least one driven wheel. The key innovation resides in the string itself, which has a "surface texture" comprising a "plurality of fibers extending away from the axis." This texture is configured to increase air friction, creating a "turbulent air boundary layer" around the moving string. This aerodynamic effect generates lift on the portion of the string loop traveling away from the device, counteracting gravity and giving the illusion that the string is floating weightlessly. (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-33; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach transforms a simple string into a dynamic object that can maintain a stable, extended shape in mid-air, creating a unique visual effect not achievable with smooth strings. (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, col. 4:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-9 and 10-19. (Compl. ¶39). The independent claims are 1, 12, and 16. The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • a body;
    • a housing attached to the body;
    • a pair of wheels, wherein at least one of the pair of wheels is a driven wheel; and
    • a string, wherein the string comprises a surface texture configured to increase air friction in response to the string being propelled through air by the pair of wheels, wherein the string defines an axis along which the string extends, and wherein the string comprises a plurality of fibers extending away from the axis.
  • The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the "LoopLasso" string shooting device. (Compl. ¶16, 23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the LoopLasso is a handheld toy that propels a loop of string and is sold through various channels, including Amazon.com and LoopLasso.com. (Compl. ¶4, 27). The complaint alleges that Defendants have marketed the LoopLasso using phrases such as "Loop Lasso—The Original Zip String" and as being an "Original Patented Design," creating confusion in the marketplace with Plaintiff's "ZipString" product. (Compl. ¶23, 27). A visual included in the complaint shows marketing material with a seal stating "ORIGINAL PATENTED DESIGN." (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit H, but this exhibit was not included with the public filing. (Compl. ¶39). The complaint alleges that Defendants' LoopLasso device directly infringes claims 1-19 of the '774 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶39). The infringement theory is based on Defendants' acts of "making, using, selling and offering to sell a string shooting device embodying the invention." (Compl. ¶38). Without the specific claim chart, the detailed mapping of accused product features to claim limitations is not available. The core of the allegation is that the LoopLasso device, including its body, housing, wheels, and particularly its string, contains all the elements required by the asserted claims of the ’774 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the string provided with the accused LoopLasso product meets the definition of the string claimed in the '774 Patent. A key question for the court will be whether the accused string has a "surface texture" with a "plurality of fibers extending away from the axis," as required by claim 1.
  • Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over whether the accused string is "configured to increase air friction" in a way that generates the lift described and claimed in the patent. The complaint does not provide specific evidence (e.g., aerodynamic analysis or high-speed video) demonstrating this functional aspect of the accused product, which will likely be a focus of discovery and expert testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "surface texture configured to increase air friction"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language is central to the patent's point of novelty. Its construction will determine whether infringement requires a specific physical structure (like the "fuzzy" fibers described in embodiments) or can be met by any surface that achieves the function of increasing friction to generate lift.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function as creating a "turbulent air boundary layer" and suggests it can be achieved through various methods, such as "abrading a surface of a substantially smooth string" or spraying it with a "heavy texture," which may support a construction focused on the result rather than the specific structure. (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, col. 4:18-22, col. 8:5-26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to "radiating fibers or texture" and describes the string as "fuzzy." (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, col. 4:14-17). The abstract and claims explicitly recite a "plurality of fibers extending away from the axis," which may support a narrower construction limited to strings with distinct, hair-like physical structures. (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:22-25).

The Term: "plurality of fibers extending away from the axis"

  • Context and Importance: This term provides the primary structure for the "surface texture" limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will dictate the physical characteristics a string must have to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "orientation of the threads is not necessarily critical," and that the goal is to impart turbulence, which could suggest that any non-smooth, protruding feature qualifies as a "fiber." (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, col. 5:26-30).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "fibers" itself, along with the patent's discussion of different string types (monofilament, braided, multifilament), could be argued to require discrete, thread-like elements rather than just an integrally roughened or textured surface. (Compl. Ex. A, '774 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:6-10).

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 LoopLasso device in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶44). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Defendants sell the string and shooter together, knowing they are specially made for an infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶43, 48).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is supported by allegations that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the '774 Patent and their infringement. The complaint alleges this knowledge arose from multiple sources: Defendant Sadigursky’s participation as a Kickstarter backer for Plaintiff's product, a cease-and-desist letter sent on March 8, 2023, and the filing of an Amazon APEX complaint on October 27, 2023. (Compl. ¶18, 24, 30).

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

  • A central issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the term "plurality of fibers," rooted in the patent’s description of "fuzzy" strings, be construed to read on the specific surface characteristics of the string sold with the accused LoopLasso device? The resolution will depend on how the court defines the key claim terms and the factual evidence developed regarding the accused product's physical structure and aerodynamic function.
  • A second core question will concern willfulness and unfair competition: given the detailed history alleged in the complaint—including knowledge from the Kickstarter campaign, a cease-and-desist letter, and an Amazon enforcement action—did Defendants act willfully and engage in false advertising by marketing their product as the "original" and "patented" version? The extensive non-patent allegations suggest this will be a significant battleground in the litigation, independent of the pure infringement analysis.