DCT
1:16-cv-00389
Lapierre McAfee v. Gossamer Designs LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Florence L. LaPierre-McAfee (Maine)
- Defendant: Gossamer Designs, LLC (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rudman Winchell
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00389, D. Me., 07/27/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, with the complaint alleging that sales of the accused device have occurred in Maine.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sewing aid product infringes a patent related to a device and method for creating a low-friction work surface to assist with free motion sewing.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the craft of free motion sewing and quilting, where reducing friction between the fabric and the sewing machine base is critical for enabling smooth, operator-guided stitch patterns.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff began selling a product embodying the patented technology around 2004, and that Defendant began manufacturing and selling the accused product in 2006. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings, is mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-06-30 | '190 Patent Priority Date |
| c. 2004 | Plaintiff begins selling "Free Motion Slider" product |
| 2005-01-18 | '190 Patent Issue Date |
| c. 2006 | Defendant begins selling accused "SewSlip" product |
| 2016-07-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,843,190 - "FREE MOTION SEWING METHODS AND MECHANISMS", Issued January 18, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that in free motion sewing, the operator manually guides the fabric. This can be difficult because standard sewing machine work surfaces may have a relatively high coefficient of friction, and non-retracted feed teeth can snag the material, impeding smooth movement and hindering the creation of fluid, "free form" designs (’190 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a thin, flexible plastic sheet or panel that has a very low coefficient of friction (COF) on its top surface (’190 Patent, Abstract). This sheet is placed over the sewing machine’s existing work surface, creating a new, "slippery" support area that allows an operator to easily slide a workpiece (like a quilt) by hand with minimal resistance, thereby facilitating smoother sewing motions (’190 Patent, col. 2:3-17). The patent identifies materials like Teflon® as suitable for this purpose (’190 Patent, col. 2:10-12).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to minimize the physical resistance and drag inherent in moving large or delicate workpieces during free motion sewing, which could allow for greater artistic control and smoother, more intricate stitch patterns (’190 Patent, col. 1:50-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts direct infringement of independent claim 10 and contributory infringement implicating independent method claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶¶22, 30).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method): The essential steps include:
- Providing a plastic sheet with an upper surface having a low COF (0.02 and higher) and an opening for the needle.
- Placing and securing the sheet onto the sewing machine work surface.
- Placing a workpiece on the sheet.
- Operating the sewing machine while moving the workpiece by hand across the sheet's low-friction surface.
- Independent Claim 10 (Mechanism): The essential elements of the apparatus claim are:
- A flexible plastic sheet material with at least one surface having a COF within a range of 0.04 to 0.15.
- Means for securing the sheet to a sewing machine work support surface.
- An opening through the sheet, positioned for axial alignment with the sewing needle.
- The complaint also asserts a number of dependent claims under its contributory infringement count (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused product as the "SewSlip" device and other related devices (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the SewSlip as a "thin plastic sheet that is placed onto a sewing machine table to support a workpiece" (Compl. ¶14).
A central feature alleged is the "very low coefficient of friction of its top surface," which is purported to enable "smooth and easy movement of the workpiece during free form sewing operations" (Compl. ¶¶11, 15).
Plaintiff alleges the device is "intended to be used in a manner that practices the methods protected by the '190 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint suggests that Defendant's sales have prevented the Plaintiff from gaining market share (Compl. p.1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'190 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 10)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible plastic sheet material having at least one surface which has a coefficient of friction within a range of 0.04 to 0.15, | The "SewSlip" device is described as a thin plastic sheet with a "very low coefficient of friction of its top surface." | ¶¶14, 15 | col. 9:63-65 |
| means for securing said flexible plastic sheet material to said sewing machine work support surface... | The complaint alleges the device is intended for a use that practices the patented methods, which include securing the sheet to the sewing machine. | ¶16 | col. 9:65 - col. 10:2 |
| said flexible plastic sheet material having an opening therethrough, said opening having been formed so as to be positioned in axial alignment with said sewing needle... | The complaint alleges the accused device is intended to be used in a manner that requires alignment with the sewing machine needle, implying the presence and use of such an opening. | ¶¶8, 16 | col. 10:4-7 |
'190 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (by Intended Use) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (b) and further providing a plastic sheet or panel...having at least an upper surface having a low coefficient of friction within the range of 0.02 and higher; | The "SewSlip" device itself is the allegedly provided plastic sheet with a low-friction surface. | ¶¶14, 15 | col. 8:38-42 |
| (f) securing the plastic sheet or panel to the sewing machine work surface... | The complaint alleges the device is intended to be used in a manner that practices the patented methods, which would include this securing step. | ¶16 | col. 8:55-60 |
| (j) and operating the sewing machine to sew the workpiece...moving the workpiece on the upper surface of the plastic sheet or panel by hand. | The complaint alleges the purpose of the accused product's low-friction surface is to enable smooth, easy movement of a workpiece during free form sewing. | ¶¶11, 15 | col. 9:8-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product has a "very low" coefficient of friction (Compl. ¶15). A central factual dispute may arise over whether this surface's COF falls within the specific numerical ranges recited in the asserted claims (e.g., 0.04 to 0.15 for claim 10).
- Technical Questions: Claim 10 recites a "means for securing" the sheet. The complaint does not specify what structure associated with the accused product performs this function. The infringement analysis for this means-plus-function element will raise the question of whether the SewSlip product is sold with a corresponding structure (e.g., tape, as disclosed in the patent) or if its instructions direct the use of such a structure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "coefficient of friction within a range of 0.04 to 0.15" (Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: The infringement case for the apparatus claim hinges on this quantitative limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint uses the qualitative description "very low" (Compl. ¶15), creating a potential dispute over whether the accused product meets the precise numerical boundaries defined in the claim.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might point to language in the specification describing a wider "satisfactory COF range extending upwardly to about 0.20" to argue the claimed range is not rigidly limiting (’190 Patent, col. 2:48-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself explicitly recites the "0.04 to 0.15" range. A party will argue that this constitutes a clear and deliberate limitation. The specification also discusses a "preferred range" of "0.02 to about 0.08," which could be used to argue that the patentee was focused on and intended to claim a very specific low-end friction profile (’190 Patent, col. 2:50-51).
The Term: "means for securing" (Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), limiting its scope to the structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on identifying a corresponding structure in the accused instrumentality.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The specification discloses "suitable removable anchoring means such as Scotch® Tape or similar tape" as the structure performing the securing function (’190 Patent, col. 3:51-54). This suggests the term's scope will be construed as adhesive tape and its structural equivalents, raising the question of what, if anything, in the accused product constitutes such a structure or its equivalent.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes a count for contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶28-35). It alleges that Defendant sells the SewSlip device with the intent that it be used by customers in a manner that directly infringes the patent’s method claims (Compl. ¶¶29, 31). The theory rests on the allegation that the device is specifically designed for this infringing use (Compl. ¶16).
Willful Infringement
The complaint includes conclusory allegations that Defendant's direct and contributory infringement have been willful (Compl. ¶¶25, 33). The pleading does not, however, state a factual basis for these allegations, such as pre-suit notice or evidence of copying.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following key questions:
- A primary issue will be one of quantitative proof: can the plaintiff produce evidence, such as through expert testing, to demonstrate that the accused "SewSlip" product has a coefficient of friction that falls within the specific numerical ranges required by the asserted claims (e.g., "0.04 to 0.15"), as opposed to the complaint's more general allegation of a "very low" friction surface?
- A second core question will address means-plus-function infringement: for apparatus claim 10, does the evidence show that the accused product is sold with the corresponding structure (tape or its structural equivalent) for performing the "securing" function, or that Defendant's instructions direct users to employ such a structure?
- Finally, the viability of the method claim allegations will depend on the theory of contributory infringement: can the plaintiff prove that the "SewSlip" device has no substantial non-infringing use and that the defendant sold the product with the specific intent that its customers would use it to perform all steps of the patented method?