4:24-cv-00286
My Two Ladies LLC, a Wisconsin Ltd Liability Company
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: My Two Ladies LLC (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Twice Sheared Sheep, LLC (Idaho)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP; Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00286, D. Idaho, 06/14/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is an Idaho limited liability company that resides and conducts business in the District of Idaho.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Cable Locks" product, when used with a circular knitting needle, infringes a patent related to an adjustable knitting needle assembly.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns knitting accessories, specifically adjustable stops used on the flexible cords of circular knitting needles to manage stitches for large or wide projects.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a demand letter to Defendant on March 8, 2024, demanding that it cease infringement, which may form the basis for allegations of post-notice willfulness.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-19 | '980 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-07-16 | '980 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-01-15 | Defendant Registered as LLC in Idaho |
| 2024-03-08 | Plaintiff Sent Pre-Suit Demand Letter |
| 2024-06-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,351,980 - “Adjustable Knitting Needle and Method for Knitting,” issued July 16, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges with conventional and circular knitting needles, including limitations on the width of a knitted piece, fatigue for the knitter caused by the weight of a large workpiece, and the difficulty of inspecting the overall pattern when the work is bunched on a cable (’980 Patent, col. 1:38-48; col. 2:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a knitting needle assembly featuring a flexible cord and a movable, adjustable stop or "slider" positioned on that cord (’980 Patent, Abstract). This slider can be fixed at a chosen point along the cord to manage the collection of stitches. It can be set to gently compress the stitches, creating a resilient force that automatically urges them toward the needle tip for easier knitting, or it can be set further away to allow stitches to move freely, accommodating the full width of a large project (’980 Patent, col. 2:36-47, col. 7:42-53). Figure 5 illustrates two such assemblies used in tandem to create a wide knitted workpiece (202) (’980 Patent, Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows knitters to use shorter, more ergonomic needles for very large projects (e.g., blankets) while providing a mechanism to control stitch tension and delivery to the needle tip, potentially reducing physical strain and improving workflow (’980 Patent, col. 7:18-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 13, and dependent claims 2, 4-9, and 17-20 (Compl. ¶54).
- Independent Claim 1, a representative apparatus claim, requires:
- A first needle body having a needle tip.
- A flexible cord connected to the needle body.
- An adjustable stop disposed on the cord comprising a spring mechanism.
- The spring mechanism, in an uncompressed state, fixes the stop at a point on the cord.
- Compression of the spring mechanism permits the stop to be moved to a different point on the cord.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’980 patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is identified as “Cable Locks – Circular Needle Cord Stops” (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes by using these "Cable Locks" to create the patented assembly (Compl. ¶51).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the "Cable Locks" are sold as knitting paraphernalia and function as an "adjustable stop" when placed on the flexible cord of a knitting needle (Compl. ¶11, 15-16). The complaint states that imagery on the Defendant's website displays a knitting needle with a flexible cord and an adjustable stop on the cord (Compl. ¶16). Numerous paragraphs allege that Defendant's YouTube and Instagram channels instruct users on how to use the "Cable Locks" in this manner (Compl. ¶19-49). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the mechanism of the "Cable Locks."
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'980 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first needle body having first and second ends, wherein the first end forms a needle tip; | The complaint alleges Defendant uses its "Cable Locks" with a knitting needle that has a needle body and tip. | ¶16, ¶51 | col. 4:39-47 |
| a flexible cord connected at a first end to the second end of the needle; | The complaint alleges Defendant uses its "Cable Locks" with a knitting needle that has a flexible cord. | ¶16, ¶51 | col. 4:32-34 |
| an adjustable stop disposed on the cord | The accused "Cable Locks" product is alleged to be an adjustable stop disposed on the cord of a knitting needle. | ¶15, ¶16 | col.4:26-31 |
| comprising a spring mechanism that, in an uncompressed configuration fixes the stop to a first selected point along the length of the cord, wherein compression of the spring mechanism permits the stop to be movable to a second selected point along the length of the cord. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It does not describe the mechanism of the "Cable Locks" or allege specific facts showing how they incorporate a "spring mechanism" with the claimed "uncompressed" and "compressed" functionalities. | ¶15, ¶51 | col. 7:61-68 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what is the actual mechanism of the accused "Cable Locks"? The complaint is silent on whether the product contains a "spring mechanism" as required by Claim 1, or an "elastic body" as required by Claim 13. The infringement analysis for these claims hinges entirely on the internal structure and operation of the accused product, for which no facts are pleaded.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of "spring mechanism." The patent discloses an embodiment with a literal coil spring (’980 Patent, Fig. 2b, 116) as well as an embodiment made of a single piece of elastomeric material that deforms under pressure (’980 Patent, Fig. 4b). Whether the term "spring mechanism" is construed to cover both embodiments, or is limited to a more traditional mechanical assembly, will be critical to determining the scope of Claim 1.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Key Term: "spring mechanism"
Context and Importance
This term appears in independent claim 1 and is the central technical limitation distinguishing the invention from a simple friction-based stop. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 depends entirely on whether the accused "Cable Locks" can be shown to possess a "spring mechanism" that operates as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no factual allegations about the internal workings of the accused product.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes an alternative embodiment in Figures 4a and 4b made of an "elastomeric material" that deforms under pressure to release the cord, and "rebounds" when released (’980 Patent, col. 6:45-58). A plaintiff could argue that this elastomeric body functions as a "spring mechanism," suggesting the term should not be limited to a multi-part assembly with a literal coil spring.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment detailed in Figures 2a-2c explicitly depicts a distinct "spring 116" as a component separate from the button and receiver body (’980 Patent, col. 5:40-41). The claim language recites "compression of the spring mechanism," which a defendant might argue points to a distinct, compressible component rather than the deformation of the entire stop's body.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶55). The factual basis is Defendant’s alleged promotion, advertising, and instruction to customers on how to use the "Cable Locks" to create the patented assembly, primarily through its website, YouTube, and Instagram channels (Compl. ¶16, 19-49, 55). It is alleged that Defendant specifically intends for its customers to perform the infringing acts (Compl. ¶56).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged conduct after receiving a pre-suit notice letter from Plaintiff's counsel on March 8, 2024 (Compl. ¶50, 58).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on two fundamental questions:
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: does the accused "Cable Locks" product actually incorporate the "spring mechanism" recited in Claim 1 or the "elastic body" recited in Claim 13? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations regarding the product's mechanism makes this the most immediate and critical hurdle for the plaintiff.
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the term "spring mechanism" be construed? The resolution of whether this term is limited to an assembly with a discrete spring component, or can be read more broadly to cover a single, deformable elastomeric body, will likely determine the outcome of infringement for the patent's lead independent claim.