DCT

0:11-cv-00820

Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:11-cv-00820, D. Minn., 05/21/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants sell or have sold the accused infringing products within the state and judicial district of Minnesota.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ inkjet image transfer papers infringe seven U.S. patents related to a single-step method for transferring images with an opaque background onto colored fabrics.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns heat-transfer papers, or modern "iron-ons," specifically designed to make images visible on dark or colored textiles by incorporating an opaque white layer that transfers along with the printed image.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that U.S. Patent No. RE41,623 is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,884,311. It also notes that before Defendants acquired the accused product line in July 2008, the prior owner (Oce Imaging Supplies, Inc.) had settled a dispute with the Plaintiff regarding infringement of her patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-09 Earliest Priority Date for all patents-in-suit
2005-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 6,884,311 issues
2008-07-XX Arkwright, Inc. (later Oce) sells assets to Defendant AACI
2010-07-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,749,581 issues
2010-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,754,042 issues
2010-08-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,766,475 issues
2010-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,771,554 issues
2010-09-07 U.S. Patent No. RE41,623 issues
2010-11-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,824,748 issues
2014-04-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,703,256 issues
2015-05-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE41,623 - "Method of Image Transfer On A Colored Base"

Issued September 7, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint and the underlying patent family describe prior art methods for applying images to dark fabrics as an inefficient, multi-step process (Compl. ¶21). This process typically required first transferring a separate white or light-colored background layer to the fabric, and then separately applying a second sheet containing the printed image on top of that background, creating alignment challenges (’581 Patent, col. 4:51-56; Fig. 2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an image transfer sheet that simplifies this process into a single step by integrating an opaque background with the image-receptive layer (Compl. ¶22). The sheet is constructed with polymer layers, at least one of which is impregnated with a white or luminescent pigment like titanium oxide, creating an opaque field that transfers to the fabric along with the printed indicia (’581 Patent, col. 4:14-25, Abstract; Fig. 3A).
  • Technical Importance: This innovation streamlined the creation of custom "iron-on" graphics for dark apparel, improving ease of use and reliability for both consumers and commercial entities (Compl. ¶25-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 6, among others (Compl. ¶42).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):
    • providing an image transfer sheet comprising an image transfer substrate; a release layer contacting the substrate and an image-imparting layer that comprises a polymer that includes indicia
    • wherein the release layer is impregnated with one or more of titanium oxide or other white pigment or luminescent pigment
    • peeling the image transfer substrate from the image transfer sheet
    • contacting at least the remaining portions of the image transfer sheet to the colored substrate
    • applying heat to at least the remaining portions of the image transfer sheet so that an image including indicia is transferred
  • Independent Claim 6 (Article Claim):
    • a colored substrate comprising woven, fabric based material, or paper
    • a release layer overlaying the substrate, wherein the release layer is impregnated with titanium oxide or other white pigment or luminescent pigment
    • a polymer layer
  • The complaint notes infringement of claims 1-7, 9, and 13-17 (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 7,749,581 - "Image Transfer on a Colored Base"

Issued July 6, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies the inefficiency of conventional two-step image transfer processes for colored bases, which involve separate application of a white background and the desired image (’581 Patent, col. 4:41-56; Fig. 2 (Prior Art)).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an "image transfer article" that consolidates the background and image layers into a single sheet (’581 Patent, Abstract). The article includes an "image-imparting member" containing a pigment (e.g., titanium oxide) that provides an "opaque background," allowing both the image and its background to be transferred concurrently to a dark-colored base upon the application of heat (’581 Patent, col. 11:45-50, Claim 2).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a more efficient and user-friendly method for creating customized graphics on dark-colored textiles and other substrates (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, and 24, among others (Compl. ¶43).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Article Claim):
    • an image-imparting member, including at least one surface configured to receive and carry indicia to be transferred
    • and including at least one portion comprising a concentration or configuration of pigment providing an opaque background for received indicia
    • the opaque background having a substantially non-transparent effect allowing the received indicia to be visible when transferred to a dark-colored base
    • a removable substrate disposed adjacent, and underlaying, the image-imparting member
    • the removable substrate including a coating comprising at least one of silicone, clay, resin, fluorocarbon, urethane, or an acrylic base polymer
  • The complaint asserts infringement of dependent claims and other independent claims (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 7,754,042 - "Method of Image Transfer on a Colored Base"

Issued July 13, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family as the ’581 Patent, the ’042 Patent claims methods of making and using an image transfer article. The method involves providing a sheet with a removable substrate and an image-imparting member containing an opaque pigment, allowing for a single-step transfer of an image with its background to a dark base.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are asserted, including independent method claims 1, 10, and 16 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: Defendants’ business of producing, selling, and distributing inkjet image transfer papers is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶6, ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 7,766,475 - "Image Transfer on a Colored Base"

Issued August 3, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’475 Patent claims an ink-jet transfer article with a specific layered structure. It describes an opaque first layer containing polyurethane and a white pigment, and a second, ink-receptive layer also containing polyurethane, all on a removable substrate, designed for transfer to a dark receiving member.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 13, and 15-16 are asserted, including independent article claim 13 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: Defendants’ inkjet image transfer papers are alleged to embody the claimed article (Compl. ¶6, ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 7,771,554 - "Image Transfer on a Colored Base"

Issued August 10, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’554 Patent claims methods for transferring an image to fabric and the transfer sheet itself. The invention centers on a sheet structure including an EAA (ethylene acrylic acid) resin, a silicone release coating, and a base paper portion, combined with an ink receptive portion and an opaque pigment.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-4, and 9-11 are asserted, including independent method claim 1 and independent article claim 6 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: Defendants’ inkjet image transfer papers are alleged to be used in an infringing manner and to constitute the infringing sheet (Compl. ¶6, ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 7,824,748 - "Image Transfer on a Colored Base"

Issued November 2, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’748 Patent claims an article for imparting an image to a dark-colored receiver. The article features a release-enhancing coating and one or more overlaying layers that include an ink receptive portion, a polymer, and a high concentration (e.g., 30-50% by volume) of titanium oxide or other white pigment to provide opacity.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-31 are asserted, including independent article claims 1, 8, 11, and 19 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Accused Features: Defendants’ inkjet image transfer papers are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶6, ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 8,703,256 - "Image Transfer on a Colored Base"

Issued April 22, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’256 Patent claims an image transfer article comprising an image-imparting member with an opaque portion and an adjacent substrate. The claims focus on the structural arrangement that facilitates the transfer of both indicia and the opaque background to an image-receiving article.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 3, and 7-9 are asserted, including independent article claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: Defendants’ inkjet image transfer papers are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶6, ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "inkjet image transfer papers or sheets" generally (Compl. ¶6). Specific accused products include "Arkwright's Multi-Surface Transfer Paper (Arkwright Stock No. 754-00)," "Arkwright’s Fashion Transfer for Dark Colored Fabrics (Arkwright Stock No. 889)," "3197 T-Printz Solvent Dark Fabric Transfer," and "4578 T-Printz Universal Dark Fabric Transfer" (Compl. ¶27, ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as enabling users to print an image from a printer onto the sheet and then use heat to transfer that image onto a base, such as a T-shirt (Compl. ¶25). The product names explicitly reference use with "Dark Colored Fabrics," indicating their function is to render images visible on such surfaces (Compl. ¶27, ¶29). The complaint alleges that Defendants' sales of these products resulted in lost customers and profits for the Plaintiff, suggesting direct competition in the consumer and commercial markets (Compl. ¶32).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed mapping of accused product features to specific claim limitations. The following summary is based on the general allegation that Defendants' image transfer sheets for dark fabrics infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶50).

7,749,581 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an image-imparting member, including at least one surface configured to receive and carry indicia to be transferred... The accused products are identified as "inkjet image transfer papers" designed to be printed upon by a consumer or commercial printer. ¶25, ¶50 col. 11:36-38
...and including at least one portion comprising a concentration or configuration of pigment providing an opaque background for received indicia...allowing the received indicia to be visible when transferred to a dark-colored base... The accused products are marketed for use on "Dark Colored Fabrics," which necessitates an opaque layer to make the transferred image visible. ¶27, ¶29 col. 11:39-44
...and a removable substrate disposed adjacent, and underlaying, the image-imparting member, the removable substrate including a coating comprising at least one of silicone, clay, resin, fluorocarbon, urethane, or an acrylic base polymer. As transfer sheets, the accused products inherently include a backing that is removed as part of the transfer process. ¶25 col. 11:45-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory is conclusory. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the specific layered structure and chemical composition of the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims. For instance, does the "removable substrate" of the accused products actually include one of the specific coating materials recited in Claim 1 of the ’581 Patent?
    • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical details about the accused products. The case will likely depend on discovery to answer key technical questions, such as: What specific pigments are used in the accused transfer sheets, and do they create a "substantially non-transparent effect" as claimed? What specific polymers and adhesives comprise the layers of the accused sheets?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "image-imparting member" (’581 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the operative portion of the invention that is ultimately transferred to the fabric. Its construction is critical because it will determine which layers of the accused products must be analyzed and whether they must form a single, integrated component to infringe.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where this "member" consists of multiple distinct layers, such as a "white layer 506" and a separate "receiving layer 508," which are transferred together (’581 Patent, col. 8:55-57). This may support a construction covering a collection of layers that are transferred concurrently.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract describes "an image transfer sheet" comprising "a polymer layer" (singular) that itself "comprises titanium oxide" (’581 Patent, Abstract). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a single, integrated layer that both receives the image and contains the opacifying pigment.

  • The Term: "opaque background" (’581 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term captures the core functional purpose of the invention. The required degree of opacity will be a central issue, as it sets the standard the accused products must meet.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language defines the term functionally: it must have a "substantially non-transparent effect allowing the received indicia to be visible when transferred to a dark-colored base" (’581 Patent, col. 11:42-44). This could support a broad interpretation where any material that achieves this visual result meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discloses titanium oxide as a key pigment for achieving the invention's goal (’581 Patent, col. 4:14-16). A party might argue that the term should be construed in light of these specific embodiments to require a high degree of opacity characteristic of such pigments, rather than mere translucency.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing end consumers with "explicit instructions to use the image transfer sheets in a manner that Defendants know to be infringing" (Compl. ¶51). It also makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶49).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' "intentional, knowing, willful, deliberate" infringement "with full knowledge of Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶54). The factual basis for this knowledge appears to be the allegation that the predecessor company, Oce, from which Defendants acquired the product line, had "actual knowledge of the '311 Patent" due to a prior, settled infringement dispute with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶31, ¶33).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary substantiation: given the complaint’s lack of specific technical allegations, can the Plaintiff develop sufficient evidence through discovery to prove that the precise chemical compositions, material properties, and layered structures of the accused transfer sheets meet each limitation of the asserted claims?
  • A key legal question will be one of structural definition: how should the term "image-imparting member" be construed? Will it be interpreted broadly to cover any collection of layers transferred together, or will it be limited to a more integrated structure, such as a single polymer layer containing the opacifying pigment?
  • A central question for willfulness will be one of transferred knowledge: does the alleged knowledge of the patents by a predecessor-in-interest (Oce) legally establish the requisite knowledge and intent for willful infringement by the Defendants (AACI) for infringing acts that occurred after the asset sale?