DCT
2:25-cv-00093
Chalkless Inc v. Spider Chalk LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Chalkless, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Spider Chalk, LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Advanced Technology Law; Talus Law Group LLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00093, N.D. Ga., 04/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having committed acts of infringement in Georgia and having a regular and established place of business in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s grip enhancement kits infringe a patent related to the use of particulate aerogel material for improving grip.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using advanced materials, specifically particulate aerogels, as a superior alternative to traditional magnesium carbonate (chalk) for enhancing grip in athletics and other activities.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the inventors of the patent-in-suit are the founders of the Plaintiff, Chalkless, Inc. The complaint also includes extensive allegations that the Defendant copied the Plaintiff's trade dress and marketing materials, which may be used to support claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-07-01 | *’257* Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-05-30 | ’257 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-04-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,660,257 - "Particulate Aerogel Material Kit for Grip Enhancement"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that effective gripping of objects is often hindered by factors like perspiration and natural oils on the skin, and that existing solutions such as traditional chalk are messy, hydrophilic (attract water), and easily washed off, while gloves can impede dexterity (’257 Patent, col. 3:21-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a kit containing particulate aerogel material designed to be applied to human skin or a surface to improve friction. The aerogel, a highly porous and lightweight solid, functions by absorbing oils and sweat while creating a high-friction interface between the user's skin and the gripped object (’257 Patent, col. 5:1-6; Abstract). The patent describes various methods of packaging and dispensing this material, including through shaker-style containers and porous bags (’257 Patent, Figs. 3, 4).
- Technical Importance: The use of hydrophobic aerogel particles provides a grip enhancement solution that is more durable and effective than traditional chalk, as it actively repels moisture while absorbing performance-degrading oils from the skin (’257 Patent, col. 3:42-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 11 (’257 Patent, col. 43:52-44:5; Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11 are:
- A grip enhancement kit, comprising:
- a plurality of dry aerogel particles; and
- a container adapted to contain the dry aerogel particles;
- wherein the dry aerogel particles are contained within the container; and
- wherein at least 50 vol % of the dry aerogel particles have a maximum cross-sectional dimension of greater than or equal to 50 nanometers.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Ghost Grip Clear Chalk Crystals" grip enhancement kit (the "Ghost Grip Kit"), as well as other allegedly substantially identical private label products produced by Defendant (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Ghost Grip Kit is marketed and sold as a grip enhancement product for a variety of athletic activities, including weightlifting, rock climbing, and disc golf (Compl. ¶14). Plaintiff alleges Defendant designed the kit to directly compete with and copy Plaintiff's patented products (Compl. ¶24). The complaint includes a copy of a webpage from spiderchalk.com as visual evidence of the accused product being offered for sale (Compl. ¶14, Ex. 3). The complaint alleges that Defendant purposefully mislabels the material in its kit as "precipitated amorphous silica" in an attempt to conceal the fact that it is an aerogel (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’257 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A grip enhancement kit, comprising: a plurality of dry aerogel particles; and a container adapted to contain the dry aerogel particles; wherein the dry aerogel particles are contained within the container; | The "Ghost Grip Kit" is identified as a grip enhancement kit containing a particulate material in a container. The complaint alleges this material is, in fact, an aerogel. | ¶14, ¶23 | col. 2:36-38 |
| wherein at least 50 vol % of the dry aerogel particles have a maximum cross-sectional dimension of greater than or equal to 50 nanometers. | The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the Ghost Grip Kit infringes Claim 11, which includes this particle size limitation. No specific facts supporting this element are provided. | ¶15 | col. 6:37-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "aerogel particles." The complaint alleges Defendant's product contains aerogel while being marketed as "precipitated amorphous silica" (Compl. ¶23). The case may turn on whether the accused material, regardless of its name, possesses the structural and functional properties of the "aerogel particles" described and claimed in the patent.
- Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question for the plaintiff will be to prove that the accused product meets the quantitative limitation of Claim 11. What evidence, such as from microscopy or other materials analysis, can be presented to demonstrate that "at least 50 vol %" of the particles in the Ghost Grip Kit have a "maximum cross-sectional dimension of greater than or equal to 50 nanometers"? The complaint currently lacks specific factual allegations on this technical point.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "aerogel particles"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the material in Defendant's "Ghost Grip Kit" falls within the proper construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant's alleged use of the name "precipitated amorphous silica" suggests a potential dispute over the material's identity (Compl. ¶23).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines aerogels broadly as a "class of low-density solid materials comprising a porous three-dimensional network of interconnected nanostructures" typically made via a "sol-gel process" (’257 Patent, col. 10:51-54). Plaintiff may argue this functional and process-based definition should encompass any material meeting these criteria, including the accused product.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides numerous examples of specific aerogel types (e.g., "trimethylsilylated silica aerogel") and specific physical properties, such as high BET surface area and defined pore volumes (’257 Patent, col. 8:12-17, col. 8:40-52). A defendant may argue that to qualify as an "aerogel particle" under the patent, a material must exhibit these specific, disclosed characteristics, potentially narrowing the claim scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant provides the Ghost Grip Kit to customers with the knowledge and intent that they will use it in a manner that directly infringes the ’257 patent (Compl. ¶30). The complaint further alleges that the kit is not a staple article of commerce and lacks substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’257 patent from reviewing Plaintiff's website and patent-marked products (Compl. ¶20). The allegations of "purposeful copying" of Plaintiff's product features, trade dress, and even marketing photographs are presented as further evidence of deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶¶24-27). A photograph from Defendant's marketing, which is allegedly identical to one used by Plaintiff, is referenced as visual evidence of this conduct (Compl. ¶27, Ex. 7).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of compositional identity: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant's product, marketed as "precipitated amorphous silica," is technically equivalent to the "dry aerogel particles" claimed in the ’257 patent, or will Defendant succeed in establishing a meaningful technical distinction between the two materials?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of dimensional proof: What technical evidence will Plaintiff offer to satisfy the specific particle size limitation in Claim 11? The ability to prove that at least 50% of the particles in the accused product are 50 nanometers or larger will be critical to establishing literal infringement.
- A central question for damages will be one of intent: Will the extensive allegations of "purposeful copying" of product features, branding, and marketing materials be substantiated with evidence sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement, potentially exposing Defendant to treble damages and attorney's fees?