DCT
1:25-cv-01327
Cole Haan LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cole Haan LLC (Delaware / New Hampshire)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Entities, Unincorporated Associations, and/or Collective Who Operate Wearbreeze.co (Jurisdiction unknown, alleged to operate from the People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thompson Coburn LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01327, N.D. Ill., 02/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants allegedly targeting business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, by operating a website that offers shipping to Illinois, accepts payment in U.S. currency, and sells products that cause substantial injury to Plaintiff in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Breeze" line of footwear, sold online, infringes three of Plaintiff's utility patents and five of its design patents related to knit shoe uppers, shoe construction, and ornamental shoe designs.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for manufacturing footwear with unitary, one-piece knit uppers that integrate traditional aesthetic elements, such as wingtip patterns and broguing, directly into the fabric during the knitting process.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants operate anonymously, potentially from China, using a virtual office address in Scotland to conceal their identities. Plaintiff states it sent correspondence to Defendants regarding the alleged infringement on August 7, 2024, and again on January 31, 2025, but received no response.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-08 | Priority Date for ’511, ’163, ’262, ’264, ’265, ’308 Patents |
| 2018-02-06 | U.S. Patent D809,264 Issued |
| 2018-02-06 | U.S. Patent D809,265 Issued |
| 2018-05-01 | U.S. Patent D816,308 Issued |
| 2018-05-31 | Priority Date for ’575 Patent |
| 2019-04-08 | Priority Date for ’267 Patent |
| 2019-06-25 | U.S. Patent 10,327,511 Issued |
| 2019-10-15 | U.S. Patent 10,443,163 Issued |
| 2020-09-01 | U.S. Patent D894,575 Issued |
| 2020-12-01 | U.S. Patent D903,267 Issued |
| 2021-06-22 | U.S. Patent 11,041,262 Issued |
| 2023-03-04 | Defendants' Breeze Website Launched |
| 2024-08-07 | Plaintiff's First Correspondence to Defendants |
| 2025-01-31 | Plaintiff's Second Correspondence to Defendants |
| 2025-02-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,327,511 - "Shoe Having Knit Wingtip Upper," issued June 25, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not state an explicit problem but addresses the field of "shoes having knit uppers" ('511 Patent, col. 1:15-16). The background implies a need to create footwear that combines the comfort and manufacturing efficiency of modern knit construction with the complex, traditional aesthetics of classic dress shoes, such as wingtip patterns.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a shoe with an upper made from a "knitted element" produced as a "unitary one-piece construction" on a knitting machine ('511 Patent, col. 2:28-31). This single piece of fabric is engineered to have distinct anatomical regions (e.g., heel, midfoot, toe) as well as intricate decorative features, like a "wingtip pattern" with "broguing" (lines of holes), knitted directly into the structure ('511 Patent, col. 4:20-29; Fig. 5). This process avoids the need to cut and sew multiple pieces of material to achieve the desired shape and look.
- Technical Importance: This manufacturing approach enables the creation of lightweight, form-fitting footwear that mimics classic leather shoe designs while potentially reducing material waste and complex assembly steps associated with traditional shoemaking ('511 Patent, col. 6:5-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (product) and 21 (method) (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 48).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a shoe comprising a knit upper and a sole, where the upper has a knitted element with specific features, including:
- Being a unitary one-piece construction from a knitting machine.
- Comprising specific knitted regions (heel, midfoot, metatarsal, toe).
- Having these regions "seamlessly knitted" together in a specific sequence.
- Including a "wingtip pattern" that is itself defined by a "medial line of broguing and a lateral line of broguing" with specific wing-shaped and converging portions.
- Independent Claim 21 recites a method of manufacturing a footwear article, comprising the steps of:
- Knitting a unitary one-piece element with specified regions and two different knit areas (jersey and pointelle stitch).
- Attaching the sole to the upper.
- Seamlessly knitting the toe region to the ball regions, the ball regions to the metatarsal region, and the metatarsal region to the midfoot regions.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶34, n.7).
U.S. Patent No. 10,443,163 - "Shoe Having Knit Wingtip Upper," issued October 15, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’511 patent, this patent addresses the same general challenge of creating a knit shoe with integrated wingtip features ('163 Patent, col. 1:5-10).
- The Patented Solution: This invention also describes a shoe with a unitary one-piece knit upper. It places particular emphasis on how the wingtip pattern is formed. The claims specify that the knitted element comprises a "first area of a first type of knit structure and a second area of a second type of knit structure," where the boundary between these two different knits is "coincident and coextensive" and defines the "boundary line" of the wingtip pattern ('163 Patent, col. 2:15-25, claim 1). This patent details creating visual and textural patterns by varying the knit structure itself.
- Technical Importance: This technique provides a method to create distinct patterns and textures directly within a single piece of fabric, further integrating design elements into the manufacturing process and enhancing the visual complexity achievable in a knit upper.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (product) (Compl. ¶69).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a shoe with a knit upper and sole, where the knitted element includes:
- A unitary one-piece construction with specific, seamlessly knitted regions (heel, midfoot, etc.).
- A "wingtip pattern" being portions of specific regions.
- A "first area" of a "first type of knit structure" and a "second area" of a "second type of knit structure."
- The boundary between these two areas being "coincident and coextensive" and defining a "boundary line" that is part of the wingtip pattern.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶69, n.8).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,041,262
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,041,262, "Shoe Having Knit Wingtip Upper," issued June 22, 2021.
- Technology Synopsis: The ’262 patent claims a method for manufacturing an article of footwear. The method involves knitting a unitary one-piece upper that comprises specific anatomical regions, a first area of jersey stitch knit, and a second area of pointelle stitch knit, with a line of broguing adjacent to the boundary between the two areas, followed by specific steps for seamless knitting and attaching the sole ('262 Patent, claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶86).
- Accused Features: The manufacturing process used to create the "Flexknit" shoe is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶101).
Multi-Patent Capsule: Design Patents
- U.S. Patent No. D809,264: "Upper for Shoe," issued Feb. 6, 2018. The patent claims the ornamental design for a shoe upper. The "Flexknit" shoe is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶107).
- U.S. Patent No. D809,265: "Combined Upper and Welt for Shoe," issued Feb. 6, 2018. The patent claims the ornamental design for a combined shoe upper and welt. The "Flexknit" shoe is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶116).
- U.S. Patent No. D816,308: "Shoe," issued May 1, 2018. The patent claims the ornamental design for a shoe. The "Urban," "Flexknit," and "Swift" shoes are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶125).
- U.S. Patent No. D894,575: "Shoe," issued Sep. 1, 2020. The patent claims the ornamental design for a shoe. The "Urban" and "Swift" shoes are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶134).
- U.S. Patent No. D903,267: "Shoe," issued Dec. 1, 2020. The patent claims the ornamental design for a shoe, with a focus on the sole pattern. All eleven Accused Products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶143).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are eleven models of footwear sold under the "Breeze" brand name on the website wearbreeze.co and on Amazon: the Urban, Merino, Flexknit, Swift, Flow, Portland, Ridge, Oslo, Atlas, Amalfi, and Mayfair shoes (Compl. ¶4, ¶8 fn. 4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The products are described as "Ultra Comfortable Shoes" and feature knit uppers with flexible soles (Compl. ¶4). The complaint alleges these products are "knockoffs and copies of various Cole Haan patented designs" (Compl. ¶4). Visual evidence in the complaint shows that when ordered from the Breeze Website, the products are shipped directly from Yiwu, China, and may arrive bearing the name "HAOYUNDONG" rather than "Breeze" (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13). For example, a provided screenshot depicts an order for "Mayfair" and "Portland" shoes being processed in Yiwu, China (Compl. p.6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'511 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a knit upper; | The accused "Flexknit" shoe has a knit upper. The complaint provides an annotated photograph identifying the "Knit Upper." | ¶38 | col. 2:26 |
| a sole secured to the upper; | The accused "Flexknit" shoe has a sole secured to the upper. An annotated photograph identifies the "Sole." | ¶40 | col. 2:27 |
| the knit upper having a knitted element, the knitted element being formed of a unitary one-piece construction during a knitting process on a knitting machine, the knitted element comprising a knitted upper heel region, a knitted upper lateral midfoot region, a knitted upper medial midfoot region, a knitted upper metatarsal region,... and a knitted upper toe region... | The "Flexknit" shoe is alleged to comprise the recited regions, which are knitted as claimed. An annotated photograph labels these distinct regions on the accused shoe. | ¶42 | col. 2:28-40 |
| the knitted element including a wingtip pattern, the wingtip pattern being portions of at least the upper toe region, the upper lateral and medial ball regions, and the upper lateral and medial metatarsal regions; | The "Flexknit" shoe is alleged to have a wingtip pattern composed of portions of the claimed regions. An annotated photograph identifies the "Wingtip pattern" and its constituent regions on the accused shoe. | ¶43 | col. 4:20-29 |
| the wingtip pattern comprising a medial line of broguing and a lateral line of broguing, ... the rearwardly extending central broguing portion of the medial line of broguing converging toward the rearwardly extending central broguing portion of the lateral line of broguing. | The wingtip pattern on the "Flexknit" shoe is alleged to comprise the specific medial and lateral lines of broguing with the claimed geometric arrangement. A photograph labels the "Medial line of broguing" and "Lateral line of broguing." | ¶46 | col. 4:30-43 |
'163 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...the knitted element comprising a first area of a first type of knit structure and a second area of a second type of knit structure, the second type of knit structure being different from the first type of knit structure... | The accused "Urban," "Merino," "Flexknit," "Swift," and "Flow" shoes are alleged to have the claimed first and second areas of different knit structures. | ¶79 | col. 2:15-20 |
| ...the rear boundary of the first area and the forward boundary of the second area being coincident and coextensive with each other and defining a boundary line between the first and second areas, the wingtip pattern comprising the boundary line... | The boundary between the two different knit areas on the accused shoes is alleged to define the boundary line of the wingtip pattern. A supporting photograph labels "First knit structure" and "Second knit structure" on an accused shoe. | ¶79 | col. 2:21-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the patterns on the accused shoes meet the highly detailed, multi-part definitions of "wingtip pattern" and "line of broguing" recited in the utility patent claims. The court will have to determine if the accused patterns, which appear visually similar to a wingtip, satisfy all specific structural and geometric limitations, such as the "wing-shaped curved line of holes" and the "converging" central portions ('511 Patent, claim 1).
- Technical Questions: For the ’163 Patent, a key factual question will be whether the accused products are actually made with two "different" types of knit structure whose boundary is "coincident and coextensive" with the wingtip pattern's boundary line, as required by claim 1. For the asserted method claims ('511 claim 21; '262 claim 1), infringement depends on the actual manufacturing process. The complaint alleges infringement of these claims "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 101), raising the evidentiary question of how Plaintiff will prove the specific steps of the manufacturing method allegedly used in China.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "seamlessly knitted"
- Context and Importance: This term appears repeatedly in the independent claims of the utility patents to define the relationship between the various anatomical regions of the knit upper (e.g., "the upper toe region being seamlessly knitted with the upper medial and lateral ball regions") ('511 Patent, claim 1). The construction of this term is critical to defining the "unitary one-piece" nature of the invention and distinguishing it from uppers constructed from separate, subsequently joined pieces.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term simply means formed during a single, continuous knitting operation, without a subsequent sewing or bonding step to join the regions. The specification describes the various regions as being "knitted as a as a unitary one-piece construction" ('511 Patent, col. 6:3-4).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue "seamlessly" requires more than just co-formation, suggesting a visually and texturally smooth or uninterrupted transition between regions. The patent's overall focus on creating an integrated element could support a construction where the boundary is functionally and aesthetically indistinct.
The Term: "wingtip pattern"
- Context and Importance: This is the central aesthetic and structural feature claimed in the utility patents. The claims themselves provide a lengthy, detailed definition of the term, making it a likely candidate for acting as its own lexicographer. Infringement will depend entirely on whether the accused products' patterns meet this specific definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the invention more generally as a shoe where "the knit upper has a wingtip pattern knit into the knit upper" ('511 Patent, Abstract). This could support an argument that the term should be understood by its plain meaning in the footwear industry.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '511 patent provides an explicit, multi-part definition, requiring "a medial line of broguing and a lateral line of broguing," which in turn are defined as having specific "wing-shaped curved" portions and "central broguing portion[s]" that "converge" ('511 Patent, col. 8:8-28). The detailed description and figures (e.g., Fig. 5) provide a specific visual embodiment that would support a narrow construction limited to this precise geometry.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both constructive and actual knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 26-30). The claim of constructive knowledge is based on Plaintiff's public patent marking practices (Compl. ¶27). The claim of actual knowledge is based on two specific instances of pre-suit correspondence sent to Defendants on August 7, 2024, and January 31, 2025, which allegedly identified the Asserted Patents and the infringing products (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 28). The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities after receiving these notices (Compl. ¶30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope versus visual similarity: Do the accused shoe patterns, which visually resemble a classic wingtip, satisfy the highly detailed, multi-part definitions of "wingtip pattern" and "line of broguing" recited in the utility patents, or is there a dispositive mismatch in their technical and geometric structure?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of process: For the asserted method claims, what evidence can Plaintiff obtain through discovery to prove that the anonymous Defendants, allegedly operating in China, utilize a manufacturing process that performs the specific claimed steps of "seamlessly" knitting different regions and stitch types to form a unitary, one-piece upper?
- A central question for the design patent claims will be one of visual deception: In the eye of an ordinary observer, is the overall visual appearance of the accused shoes "substantially the same" as the claimed ornamental designs, particularly for the ’267 patent, which is asserted against all eleven accused shoe models for their sole design?