DCT

1:22-cv-01592

Jezign Licensing LLC v. Bebe Holdings Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01592, D. Md., 06/28/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Maryland because each defendant regularly conducts business in the state, including sales to consumers through interactive websites.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain models of Defendants' illuminated footwear infringe a design patent for an "illuminated shoe lower."
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit operates in the consumer fashion and footwear sector, focusing on the specific ornamental appearance of shoes that incorporate lighting elements into their soles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D554,848, expired on November 13, 2021, over seven months prior to the filing of the suit. This limits Plaintiff's potential recovery to damages for infringing activities that occurred during the patent's term.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-09-27 '848 Patent Priority Date
2007-11-13 '848 Patent Issue Date
2021-11-13 '848 Patent Expiration Date
2022-06-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D554,848 - Illuminated shoe lower

Issued November 13, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that prior illuminated footwear had a different design and placement of lights, and the invention sought to create a new aesthetic. (Compl. ¶9). Design patents protect novel ornamental appearances, addressing the need for unique product aesthetics.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for the lower portion of a shoe. The design consists of a continuous, translucent midsole band containing a series of distinct geometric pods or segments. The patent explicitly notes that "broken lines extending from the translucent regions of the shoe lower indicate that those regions are illuminated," making the visual effect of illumination part of the claimed design. (’848 Patent, Description). The shoe upper, shown in broken lines in the patent figures, is disclaimed and forms no part of the invention. (’848 Patent, Description, Fig. 1-9).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff has been "perfecting the design and technology of its unique illuminated footwear" since at least 2000, suggesting the patented design was part of an effort to establish a distinct visual identity in this product category. (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for an illuminated shoe lower, as shown and described." (’848 Patent, Claim).
  • Key ornamental features of the claimed design include:
    • The overall shape and contour of the shoe lower.
    • A translucent midsole band that wraps around the perimeter of the shoe lower.
    • A specific arrangement of discrete shapes or pods within the translucent band.
    • The visual appearance of illumination emanating from these translucent regions.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are footwear including, but not limited to, the "Sport Krysten," "Sport Keene," and "Light-Up Boots." (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are shoes with illuminated soles offered, licensed, or sold by the Defendants through online retailers. (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). The relevant functionality is the ornamental appearance created by the light-up soles. The complaint provides an image of a white high-top shoe, identified as an infringing product, featuring a translucent sole illuminated with a greenish-blue light. (Compl. ¶14). An image of an accused pink boot shows multicolored lights in the sole. (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. (Compl. ¶15).

D554,848 Infringement Allegations

Key Feature of Claimed Design (from Figures 1-9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An ornamental design for a "shoe lower" The accused "Infringing Products" are shoes that allegedly have "substantially the same ornamental design as the design claimed in the patent-in-suit." ¶16 ’848 Patent, Claim
A continuous translucent midsole band wrapping around the shoe, which is depicted as being illuminated The accused products, such as the white high-top sneaker shown, feature an illuminated translucent sole that wraps around the shoe. ¶14 ’848 Patent, Description; Fig. 7
A pattern of discrete geometric shapes or pods embedded within the translucent midsole The accused products' illuminated soles appear to contain internal structures or segments that create a distinct visual pattern when lit. The complaint provides an image of a black high-top shoe where the illuminated sole displays a textured or segmented appearance. ¶14 ’848 Patent, Fig. 7
The overall visual impression created by the specific shapes, contours, and illumination effect The complaint alleges that in the eye of an ordinary observer, the design of the infringing products and the claimed design are "substantially the same," such that the observer would be deceived into believing the products embody the patented design. ¶15 ’848 Patent, Fig. 1-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the "ordinary observer" would find the designs substantially similar after mentally filtering out the non-claimed elements. The patent claims only the "shoe lower," while the accused products are complete shoes with distinct uppers, colors, and branding (e.g., the "Bebe sport" logo). The degree to which these unclaimed elements can practically be separated from the claimed sole in the observer's eye may be a point of dispute.
    • Aesthetic Questions: The analysis will compare the specific aesthetic choices of the accused soles against the patent figures. This raises the question of whether differences in the shape, number, or arrangement of the light-emitting segments in the accused products are significant enough to differentiate them from the patented design, or if they are minor variations that do not change the overall visual impression.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete text-based terms.

  • The "Term": "illuminated shoe lower"
  • Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on what is encompassed by this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because the court's interpretation will define the visual elements to be compared. The analysis must be strictly limited to the "shoe lower" (the sole assembly), excluding the shoe's upper, which the patent explicitly disclaims. (’848 Patent, Description). The "illuminated" aspect confirms that the visual effect of light is a claimed feature, not merely the physical structure of the sole in an unlit state.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses multiple embodiments (e.g., Figs. 1-5 vs. Figs. 6-7), which may suggest the design is not confined to the exact details of any single figure but covers the shared overall visual concept.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description explicitly states that "The broken lines in the shoe upper depicted in the drawings are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design." (’848 Patent, Description). This provides a clear and narrow boundary, limiting the claim to the solid-line portions shown in the figures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants sold infringing shoes to consumers and resellers with the intent that they be used and sold in the United States. (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges Defendants "knew or should have known" that such acts would constitute direct infringement. (Compl. ¶19).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on "knowledge of the patent-in-suit." (Compl. ¶22). However, the complaint pleads that Defendants had actual knowledge "since at least the date on which Defendant received service of the complaint in this action," which may frame the willfulness claim as being based on post-suit conduct. (Compl. ¶17).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, are the ornamental designs of the accused shoe soles substantially the same as the design claimed in the '848 patent, especially after disregarding the unclaimed shoe uppers and any branding on the accused products?
  • A second central question will be evidentiary and temporal: Since the patent expired prior to the lawsuit, can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence of infringing sales by Defendants that occurred specifically within the United States and before the patent's expiration date of November 13, 2021?
  • Finally, the willfulness claim raises a question of knowledge and timing: Can Plaintiff support a claim for willful infringement for conduct that occurred before the complaint was filed, given that the complaint itself appears to base its allegation of knowledge on the date of service?