DCT
1:25-cv-12289
Cirql Materials Ltd v. SAS Circle Sportswear
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cirql Materials, Ltd. (Cayman Islands)
- Defendant: SAS Circle Sportswear (France)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12289, D. Mass., 08/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district and because the defendant is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shoes, which incorporate recyclable foam midsoles, are manufactured by a process that infringes patents related to the injection molding of biodegradable, compostable, and recyclable microcellular flexible foams.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for producing high-performance polymer foams using environmentally sustainable materials and processes, a key area of innovation in the consumer goods and footwear industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation between the parties or administrative challenges to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-05-21 | Earliest Priority Date ('055 and '704 Patents) |
| 2022-10-07 | '055 Patent Application Filed |
| 2023-08-07 | '704 Patent Application Filed |
| 2023-08-08 | '055 Patent Issues |
| 2025-01-14 | '704 Patent Issues |
| 2025-02-01 | Alleged Accused Product Launch (approx.) |
| 2025-03-01 | Alleged Specific Act of Importation into District (approx.) |
| 2025-08-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,718,055 - “Biodegradable, industrially compostable, and recyclable injection molded microcellular flexible foams”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the environmental problems associated with conventional flexible foams, which are typically derived from non-renewable resources, use chemical blowing agents, and are chemically cross-linked, rendering them non-biodegradable and difficult to recycle ('055 Patent, col. 1:47-2:12). It further notes that existing compostable materials often lack the technical performance and durability required for demanding applications like footwear ('055 Patent, col. 3:36-4:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a manufacturing process that avoids these issues by using recyclable or biodegradable thermoplastic polymers and a physical foaming agent instead of chemicals. A supercritical fluid (SCF), such as nitrogen, is mixed with molten polymer to create a "single-phase solution." This solution is then injected into a mold under computer-controlled gas counter-pressure, which allows for the creation of a microcellular foam structure without the need for chemical cross-linking, thereby preserving the material's recyclability ('055 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:31-44). The process is illustrated schematically in Figure 2 of the patent.
- Technical Importance: The described process enables the production of high-performance foams that are environmentally sustainable, addressing a significant challenge in creating a "circular economy" for polymer-based consumer products ('055 Patent, col. 4:57-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('055 Patent, col. 58:9-29; Compl. ¶19).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- forming a molten polymer from a thermoplastic masterbatch comprising one or more recyclable thermoplastic polymers;
- mixing a supercritical fluid with the molten polymer to create a single-phase solution;
- introducing the single-phase solution into a mold cavity of a molding apparatus having at least one pressure sensor;
- foaming the single-phase solution in the mold cavity by allowing the supercritical fluid to come out of solution to form a flexible foam; and
- pressurizing the mold cavity with a counterpressure gas, where the dosing amount and hold time of the gas is controlled by a computer-controller that receives data from the pressure sensor.
U.S. Patent No. 12,194,704 - “Biodegradable, industrially compostable, and recyclable injection molded microcellular flexible foams”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '704 Patent addresses the same technical problems as its parent '055 Patent: the environmental waste and performance limitations associated with conventional and early-generation compostable foams ('704 Patent, col. 1:47-2:12).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a nearly identical manufacturing process involving the use of recyclable thermoplastic polymers mixed with a supercritical fluid to form a single-phase solution. This solution is injected into a mold under gas counter-pressure to create a microcellular foam structure without chemical cross-linking, a key feature for enabling recyclability ('704 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:31-44).
- Technical Importance: The process aims to provide an environmentally responsible method for manufacturing high-performance foams suitable for demanding consumer applications, thereby facilitating a "closed loop" material lifecycle ('704 Patent, col. 4:57-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('704 Patent, col. 58:9-29; Compl. ¶25).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- forming a molten polymer from a thermoplastic masterbatch comprising one or more recyclable thermoplastic polymers;
- mixing a supercritical fluid with the molten polymer to create a single-phase solution;
- introducing the single-phase solution into a mold cavity of a molding apparatus that is pressurized with a counterpressure gas;
- the molding apparatus includes a control unit that dynamically applies varying pressures to the mold cavity with the counterpressure gas;
- foaming the single-phase solution in the mold cavity by allowing the supercritical fluid to come out of solution; and
- wherein the one or more recyclable thermoplastic polymers do not cross-link during manufacturing.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the Accused Products as shoes with recyclable flexible injection molded foam midsoles sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶10). A specific product, the "SNA RUNNING SHOES SUPERNATURAL RUNNER," is shown in a visual from Defendant's website (Compl. p. 5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused midsoles are manufactured by a third-party entity named Aloft using a process called "Super Critical Foaming 'E-Blast' Technology" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint describes this allegedly infringing method as forming a molten polymer from recyclable thermoplastic polymers; mixing it with nitrogen in a supercritical fluid state to create a single-phase solution; introducing the solution into a mold cavity; foaming the solution while pressurizing the mold with a counterpressure gas; and using a computer controller that receives data from a pressure sensor to dynamically apply varying pressures (Compl. ¶12). It is further alleged that the polymers do not cross-link during this process (Compl. ¶12).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells, offers for sale, and imports these shoes into the United States through its website (Compl. ¶¶13-15). According to the complaint, the midsoles are marketed as being recyclable into new high-performance polymer compounds (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'055 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| forming a molten polymer from a thermoplastic masterbatch comprised of recyclable thermoplastic polymers | The accused process involves forming a molten polymer from a thermoplastic masterbatch comprised of recyclable thermoplastic polymers. | ¶12 | col. 8:40-50 |
| mixing a supercritical fluid with the molten polymer to create a single-phase solution | The accused process involves mixing nitrogen in a supercritical fluid state with the molten polymer to create a single-phase solution. | ¶12 | col. 11:33-41 |
| introducing the single-phase solution into a mold cavity of a molding apparatus, the molding apparatus having at least one pressure sensor for sensing a pressure in the molding apparatus | The accused process involves introducing the single-phase solution into a mold cavity of a machine that receives data from a pressure sensor. | ¶12 | col. 8:26-32 |
| foaming the single-phase solution in the mold cavity by allowing the supercritical fluid to come out of solution, thereby forming a flexible foam | The accused process involves foaming the single-phase solution in the mold cavity by allowing the supercritical fluid to come out of solution. | ¶12 | col. 6:31-34 |
| pressurizing the mold cavity with a counterpressure gas during foaming of the single-phase solution, wherein a dosing amount and hold time of the counterpressure gas in the mold cavity is controlled by a computer-controller that receives data from the at least one pressure sensor | The accused process involves pressurizing the mold cavity with a counterpressure gas, utilizing a computer controller that receives data from a pressure sensor and controls the dosing amount and hold time of the gas. | ¶12 | col. 25:35-43 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which concerns importation of a product made by a patented process (Compl. ¶19). The infringement analysis will depend on whether the process used by a foreign third-party manufacturer (Aloft) can be proven to meet every limitation of the claimed method.
- Technical Questions: A potential point of contention may arise from the relationship between the inputs and outputs of the control system. The analysis may question whether the accused controller's alleged function of "dynamically [applying] varying pressures" is coextensive with the claim's requirement of controlling the specific "dosing amount and hold time" of the counterpressure gas based on data from the pressure sensor.
'704 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| forming a molten polymer from a thermoplastic masterbatch, the thermoplastic masterbatch comprising one or more recyclable thermoplastic polymers | The accused process involves forming a molten polymer from a thermoplastic masterbatch comprised of recyclable thermoplastic polymers. | ¶12 | col. 8:40-50 |
| mixing a supercritical fluid with the molten polymer to create a single-phase solution | The accused process involves mixing nitrogen in a supercritical fluid state with the molten polymer to create a single-phase solution. | ¶12 | col. 11:33-41 |
| introducing the single-phase solution into a mold cavity of a molding apparatus that is pressurized with a counterpressure gas | The accused process involves introducing the single-phase solution into a mold cavity and pressurizing the mold cavity with a counterpressure gas. | ¶12 | col. 8:49-51 |
| wherein the molding apparatus includes a control unit that dynamically applies varying pressures to the mold cavity with the counterpressure gas | The accused process utilizes a computer controller that dynamically applies varying pressures to the mold cavity with the counterpressure gas. | ¶12 | col. 24:45-49 |
| foaming the single-phase solution in the mold cavity by allowing the supercritical fluid to come out of solution | The accused process involves foaming the single-phase solution in the mold cavity by allowing the supercritical fluid to come out of solution. | ¶12 | col. 6:31-34 |
| wherein the one or more recyclable thermoplastic polymers do not cross-link during manufacturing of the flexible foam | The accused process uses recyclable thermoplastic polymers that do not cross-link during manufacture. | ¶12 | col. 6:55-60 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: As with the ’055 Patent, the central issue is whether the specific steps of the foreign "E-Blast" process fall within the scope of the asserted claim.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis raises the factual question of whether the accused process truly avoids cross-linking of its "renewable thermoplastic elastomers," as required by the claim (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). A further question is what evidence the complaint provides that the "E-Blaster" machine's controller performs the specific function of "dynamically [applying] varying pressures," and what the technical scope of that term entails.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Term: "single-phase solution" (in Claim 1 of '055 and '704 Patents)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the physical state of the polymer and gas mixture prior to injection. Its construction is central because a defendant could argue its process creates a different type of mixture (e.g., a two-phase dispersion) that falls outside the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the state as one where the supercritical fluid "is fully dissolved and uniformly dispersed in the molten polymer" ('055 Patent, col. 11:61-64), which could support a broad reading covering any homogenous mixture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states this solution is created under specific "conditions of temperature, pressure and shear" ('055 Patent, col. 12:1-4), which could suggest a specific and limited thermodynamic state that may not be met by all mixing processes.
- Term: "control unit that dynamically applies varying pressures" (in Claim 1 of '704 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement theory against the '704 Patent, as the complaint alleges this exact functionality (Compl. ¶12). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a pre-programmed pressure profile infringes, or if a real-time feedback loop is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "dynamically" could be argued to encompass any non-static pressure application, including a predetermined sequence of pressure changes over time.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent links dynamic control to achieving "consistent cell structure within the expanding polymer melt" ('704 Patent, col. 24:47-49), which may suggest that "dynamically" implies an active, responsive adjustment to in-process conditions rather than a fixed, pre-set routine.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement of both the '055 Patent and the '704 Patent has been and continues to be willful. The basis for this allegation is knowledge of the patents as of the filing date of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶20-21, 26-27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of process verification: can the Plaintiff obtain evidence through discovery to prove that the "E-Blast" manufacturing process, allegedly used by a third-party manufacturer in Taiwan, performs every step recited in the asserted method claims, including the specific control logic and the chemical behavior of the polymers?
- A key question of claim scope will be the interpretation of the control system limitations. The case may turn on whether the accused controller's alleged function of "dynamically applying varying pressures" is equivalent to the '055 Patent's more specific requirement of controlling "dosing amount and hold time" based on sensor data, and on the ultimate construction of the term "dynamically" in the '704 Patent.