DCT
1:25-cv-03191
STX LLC v. Stringking Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: STX, LLC (Maryland)
- Defendant: StringKing, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wright Constable & Skeen, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03191, D. Md., 09/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Maryland.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Flyer 1" lacrosse gloves infringe a patent related to a stitchless, molded dorsal padding design for protective sports gloves.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns manufacturing methods for protective sports equipment, particularly gloves, aiming to enhance flexibility and tactile feel without compromising impact protection.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff STX is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patent. The complaint notes that the asserted patent is a continuation of a patent family that includes U.S. Patent No. 10,201,744, under which Plaintiff has previously sold products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-22 | ’930 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-XX-XX | Parent Patent 10,201,744 Issued |
| 2025-XX-XX | Accused "Flyer 1" Product Launch |
| 2025-04-15 | ’930 Patent Issued |
| 2025-09-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,274,930 - "Stitchless Dorsal Padding For Protective Sports Gloves And Other Protective Gear"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. **12,274,930**, "Stitchless Dorsal Padding For Protective Sports Gloves And Other Protective Gear," issued April 15, 2025 (’930 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional protective sports gloves often use a "cut-and-sew" manufacturing process where foam padding segments are covered with fabric and stitched to a liner (Compl. ¶12). This construction is described as being "relatively thick and fairly rigid," which compromises the flexibility and tactile feel necessary for sports like lacrosse, and complicates the manufacturing process (’930 Patent, col. 1:62-64, col. 2:8-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "unitary dorsal panel" for a glove, created through a molding process rather than stitching (Compl. ¶13). This panel features a "waffle-pattern array of foam protective pads" that are formed as distinct "islands" rising from a "substantially zero-elevation surface" (’930 Patent, col. 2:31-35). These pads are separated by narrow "interstitial channels" that act as flexible hinges. The entire panel is surrounded by a "substantially contiguous border flange" which is beveled at an angle along the fingers to prevent interference and improve movement (Compl. ¶14; ’930 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This stitchless, molded design approach is intended to provide a glove that maximizes both protection and flexibility, allowing for improved stick handling and comfort for athletes (’930 Patent, col. 4:26-33; Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’930 Patent (Compl. ¶19). Independent Claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
- A unitary dorsal panel comprising an integrally-molded elastomeric member with a main section and finger sections sharing a common zero-elevation surface.
- A patterned array of foam protective pads forming individual islands raised from the zero-elevation surface.
- Foam pads along each finger section are aligned end-to-end and separated by interstitial channels with a width of 1-4 mm.
- A border flange circumscribing the finger sections.
- The border flange protrudes outward at an "acute bevel angle" relative to the zero-elevation surface around at least four of the finger sections.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the StringKing "Flyer 1" lacrosse glove (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Flyer 1 glove is Defendant's first entry into the lacrosse glove market and incorporates a "back of hand design that infringes on one or more of the claims of the '930 patent" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint provides an annotated version of Figure 2 from the ’930 Patent to illustrate the key features of the invention, which it alleges are present in the accused product (Compl. p. 5). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical breakdown of the accused product's construction, instead referring to a claim chart in an unprovided "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe the ’930 Patent but refers to an unprovided exhibit for a detailed claim chart (Compl. ¶17). The infringement theory can be inferred from the complaint's description of the patented technology, which it alleges the Accused Product embodies.
’930 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a unitary dorsal panel configured to attach to the palmar section... consisting of an integrally-molded elastomeric member formed with a main section and adjacent finger sections sharing a common zero-elevation surface | The Accused Product allegedly incorporates a "unitary molded part" forming the back of the hand, including finger sections and a main section. | ¶13, ¶17, ¶19 | col. 12:5-11 |
| a patterned array of foam protective pads each defining an individual island raised from said zero-elevation surface | The Accused Product allegedly has a back-of-hand design with protective blocks formed as raised islands. | ¶13, ¶17, ¶19 | col. 12:11-14 |
| a plurality of foam protective pads extending along each finger section... separated from adjacent foam protective pads by interstitial channels having a width within a range of from 1-4 mm | The Accused Product allegedly features pads on the finger sections separated by interstitial channels. | ¶14, ¶17, ¶19 | col. 12:15-20 |
| a border flange circumscribing said finger sections... and protruding outward at an acute bevel angle... around at least four of said adjacent finger sections | The Accused Product allegedly includes "angled flanges around the part's periphery" that correspond to the claimed beveled border flange. | ¶13, ¶14, ¶17, ¶19 | col. 12:20-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "unitary dorsal panel" and "integrally-molded." The patent provides a specific definition of "unitary" that includes fusing multiple panels together (’930 Patent, col. 3:35-40). The dispute may focus on whether the manufacturing process of the Flyer 1 glove falls within this definition.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will likely require factual determinations regarding the specific geometry of the accused glove. Key questions may include: (1) Does the accused glove possess a "border flange" that protrudes at an "acute bevel angle" as claimed? and (2) Are the "interstitial channels" between the protective pads on the fingers within the claimed width range of 1-4 mm?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "unitary dorsal panel"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim, defining the core structure of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the defendant's method of constructing the back of its glove results in a structure that meets the patent's definition of "unitary."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines "unitary" to mean "formed as a one-shot molded synthetic panel, or formed by a plurality of such panels integrally joined together by fusion of their synthetic material or by fusion of the foam protective pads to an underlying scrim material" (’930 Patent, col. 3:35-40). This language suggests the term is not limited to a single piece but can encompass components fused together.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be limited by the specific embodiments described, such as sonic welding or compression molding processes detailed in the examples (’930 Patent, col. 8:26 - col. 9:4).
The Term: "border flange ... protruding outward at an acute bevel angle"
Context and Importance: This limitation describes a specific geometric feature intended to enhance flexibility. Infringement may depend on precise measurements of the accused product and the functional purpose of any flange it possesses.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 4 specifies a bevel angle "within a range of from 30-60 degrees," providing a defined numerical scope (’930 Patent, col. 12:33-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the beveled flange to the function of avoiding "finger-interference" when a user's fingers are compressed together (’930 Patent, col. 7:41-44; Fig. 9). A party could argue that a flange not configured to achieve this specific purpose does not meet the claim limitation, even if it is angled.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "deliberate, willful, wanton, and intentional" (Compl. ¶22). The basis for this allegation includes constructive notice of the ’930 Patent since its issuance (Compl. ¶20) and allegations that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's commercial embodiment (the "RZR" glove) during the development of the accused Flyer 1 product (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and manufacturing process: Can the term "unitary dorsal panel," which the patent defines to include the "fusion" of multiple parts, be construed to read on the specific manufacturing and assembly process used for the accused Flyer 1 glove?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and geometric correspondence: Does the accused glove possess the specific physical structures recited in the claims, particularly a "border flange" that protrudes at an "acute bevel angle" and "interstitial channels" of a specific width, or is there a material difference in the accused product's design?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness and intent: Do the allegations that Defendant studied Plaintiff's patented commercial product during its own development process provide a sufficient basis to establish the egregious conduct necessary for a finding of willful infringement?