DCT

1:25-cv-09430

Ridge Wallet LLC v. JH Ecom Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: The Ridge Wallet LLC (Delaware)
    • Defendant: JH Ecom Ltd. d/b/a Shield Wallet (United Kingdom) and Jacob Harding (United Kingdom)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Ridge Wallet LLC
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09430, N.D. Ill., 08/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper because the defendants are foreign residents who may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s minimalist compact wallets infringe patents related to wallet construction, specifically designs using rigid plates and elastic bands.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns compact, minimalist wallets designed to hold credit cards between two rigid plates, using elastic bands for compression and expandability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the '808 Patent was the subject of a successful International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation that resulted in a General Exclusion Order, barring importation of infringing wallets. It also mentions a permanent injunction obtained in the Northern District of Illinois against a separate entity, "X-World," for infringing the '808 Patent, and alleges the defendants sourced products from this entity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-05-07 Priority Date for ’808 and ’212 Patents
2016-01-01 Alleged first use of Plaintiff's trade dress
2017-02-01 ’808 Patent application filed
2020-09-28 ’212 Patent application filed
2020-10-06 ’808 Patent issued
2023-03-02 Plaintiff receives customer email identifying Shield Wallet as knock-off
2023-03-07 ’212 Patent issued
2023-07-22 Earliest date of archived website showing accused product offer for sale
2023-08-15 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant
2023-08-15 Defendant acknowledges receipt of cease-and-desist letter
2023-11-01 Defendants allegedly continued to offer products for sale
2025-08-08 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808 - “Compact Wallet,” issued October 6, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes traditional bi-fold or tri-fold wallets as bulky, ill-suited for the modern prevalence of credit cards over cash, and prone to snagging on clothing due to protruding features like money clips (’808 Patent, col. 1:20-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a minimalist wallet using two rigid "bookend" plates to sandwich cards. These plates are held together by an encircling elastic band that runs through internal channels, or grooves, within the plates themselves. This design allows for an expandable interior volume while maintaining a smooth, minimal exterior profile (’808 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-56). The patent also discloses a method for modularly attaching auxiliary features, such as a money clip, via a tang-and-recess mechanism that does not interfere with the elastic band's operation (’808 Patent, col. 5:9-30).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a compact, secure, and expandable alternative to traditional wallets, optimized for carrying payment cards rather than cash.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶104).
  • Independent Claim 1: A compact wallet comprising:
    • at least two rigid plates;
    • at least one encircling elastic band;
    • a channeling means to hold the elastic band; and
    • an auxiliary feature removably attached to a plate via a tang with a hook that engages an undercut in a recess.
  • Independent Claim 14: A compact wallet comprising:
    • at least two rigid plates, each having a groove;
    • at least one encircling elastic band slidingly interposed in the grooves; and
    • a recess formed inside at least one plate, operable to receive a tang of an auxiliary feature, with the recess having an undercut to engage a hook on the tang.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,596,212 - “Compact Wallet,” issued March 7, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The '212 Patent addresses the same problems as its parent '808 Patent: the need for a compact, expandable, non-snagging wallet for a card-centric lifestyle (’212 Patent, col. 1:20-40).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention refines the wallet’s construction. It claims a wallet made from plate members, where each plate member is itself an assembly of a "grooved part" and a "backing part" attached together (’212 Patent, Claim 1). Critically, it claims two distinct elastic elements: an "encircling elastic band" that provides the main compressive force and a "retention elastic band" that extends along an exterior surface to prevent contents from slipping out of one end (’212 Patent, Claim 1; col. 4:60-63).
  • Technical Importance: This patent claims a specific two-part plate construction and a dual-function elastic system, potentially offering a more robust or feature-specific version of the minimalist wallet concept.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶115).
  • Independent Claim 1: A compact wallet comprising:
    • a first plate member composed of a first grooved part and a first backing part, attached together;
    • a second plate member composed of a second grooved part and a second backing part, attached together;
    • at least one encircling elastic band providing a resiliently expandable space between the plate members; and
    • a retention elastic band extending along an exterior surface of the first plate member.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Shield Wallet" branded compact wallets, specifically identified as the "money clip version" and the "cash strap version" (Compl. ¶29, ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Shield Wallets are "Ridge clones" that mimic the design and aesthetic of Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶9, ¶26). Based on an archived webpage, the accused products consist of two plates that hold cards between them, with one version featuring an external metal money clip and the other featuring an external elastic band, or "cash strap" (Compl. ¶25). This screenshot from July 2023 shows a money clip version (left) and a cash strap version (right) of the Shield Wallet offered for sale (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that Defendants' products are of lower quality than Ridge's wallets and trade on Plaintiff's goodwill (Compl. ¶15, ¶84).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits (Exhibits I and J) that purportedly detail the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶105, ¶116). The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

  • '808 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint alleges that Defendants' "money clip" wallets directly infringe at least claims 1 and 14 of the '808 Patent (Compl. ¶104). The infringement theory appears to be that the accused money clip wallet embodies the claimed combination of rigid plates, an encircling elastic band held in channels, and a removable money clip that functions as the claimed "auxiliary feature" attached via a "tang" into a "recess."
    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Technical Question: The central dispute may concern the attachment mechanism of the money clip. Infringement of the asserted claims appears to require a specific "tang" with a "hook" engaging a "recess" with an "undercut" (’808 Patent, Claims 1, 14). The complaint does not provide evidence detailing how the Shield Wallet's clip attaches, raising the question of whether it meets these specific structural limitations.
      • Scope Question: A question for the court will be whether the structure of the accused wallet includes the "channeling means" or "groove" for the elastic band as recited in the claims, or if the band is secured by other means.

  • '212 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint alleges that Defendants' "cash strap" wallets directly infringe at least claim 1 of the '212 Patent (Compl. ¶115). The infringement theory is that this version of the Shield Wallet is constructed with the claimed two-part plate members ("grooved part" and "backing part") and includes both an "encircling elastic band" and a separate "retention elastic band."
    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Technical Question: A primary point of contention will likely be whether the accused "cash strap" wallet contains two distinct elastic bands corresponding to the claimed "encircling elastic band" and "retention elastic band". The provided visual evidence shows a single wide exterior band (Compl. ¶25, right image). The infringement analysis will depend on whether this single component can be shown to perform both claimed functions or if the claim requires two physically separate bands.
      • Evidentiary Question: Infringement of claim 1 requires that the wallet's plates be constructed from a "grooved part" and a "backing part" that are attached together. The complaint does not provide evidence (such as from a product teardown) to establish that the accused products are made using this specific two-part laminate construction rather than, for example, a single monolithic plate.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’808 Patent:

    • The Term: "an auxiliary feature removably attached... the tang having a hook, the hook... engaging an undercut of the recess" (from Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement by the accused money clip wallet depends entirely on whether its clip is attached in this highly specific manner. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product’s clip attaches via a different mechanism (e.g., friction fit, simple tab without a hook/undercut), it may not meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "auxiliary feature" as a category that can include a "money clip 31" or a "windowed envelope 32," suggesting the term itself is not limited to one specific item (’808 Patent, col. 5:11-22).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a precise definition of the attachment mechanism. The detailed description and Figures 11-13 explicitly show the "tang (33)" with its "hook (36)" designed to engage the "undercut (35)" of the "recess (34)", which could support an argument that any deviation from this specific interlocking geometry falls outside the claim scope (’808 Patent, col. 5:23-30; Figs. 12-13).

  • For the ’212 Patent:

    • The Term: "a retention elastic band" (from Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites both an "encircling elastic band" and a "retention elastic band". The viability of the infringement allegation against a product with a single visible strap hinges on the definition of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require a physically separate structure from the "encircling band", infringement may be difficult to prove.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the terms are functional. The specification describes the "encircling elastic band (4)" as providing compression and the "first elastic strap (5)" (the retention band) as registering the contents and preventing them from "slipping beyond the ends" (’212 Patent, col. 4:58-63). An argument could be made that a single, sufficiently wide band could perform both functions.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to the "encircling elastic band (4)" and the "first elastic strap (5)" as distinct elements, even showing them as separate components (though joined) in an assembly (’212 Patent, Fig. 9). This could support a defendant's argument that the claim requires two distinct structural elements, not just two functions performed by one element.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes passing reference to indirect infringement (Compl. ¶29, ¶32), but does not plead specific facts to support claims of inducement or contributory infringement, such as citing to defendant's instructional materials or user guides.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It alleges Defendants modeled their business after Ridge, suggesting pre-suit awareness (Compl. ¶13), and that Defendants sourced products from X-World, a company previously enjoined for infringing the '808 patent (Compl. ¶78). It further alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter on August 15, 2023, which Defendant acknowledged, and that Defendant continued to make sales thereafter (Compl. ¶80-82).

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Can the plaintiff produce evidence that the internal and attachment structures of the accused Shield Wallets—which are not detailed in the complaint—actually meet the specific limitations of the asserted claims? This includes the "hook" and "undercut" attachment for the '808 patent's money clip and the two-part "grooved part" and "backing part" plate construction for the '212 patent.
  • A second core issue will be one of claim construction: For the '212 patent, does Claim 1 require two physically distinct elastic bands to meet the "encircling elastic band" and "retention elastic band" limitations, or can a single, wide band be found to satisfy both elements? The outcome of this question could be dispositive for the infringement allegation against the "cash strap" model.
  • Finally, a key question for damages will be willfulness: Given the complaint's allegations of intentional copying, sourcing from an enjoined entity, and continuing sales after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, the court will need to evaluate whether any infringement was willful, which could expose the defendants to enhanced damages.