DCT
4:18-cv-00387
LineWeight LLC v. FirstSpear LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lineweight LLC and Crye Precision LLC (New York)
- Defendant: FirstSpear, LLC (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lathrop Gage LLP; Greenberg Traurig, LLP
- Case Identification: 4:18-cv-00387, E.D. Mo., 03/08/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Missouri because the Defendant is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in the district, has placed the accused products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they would be sold in the district, and has sold, advertised, and marketed products in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s tactical load-bearing garments, such as armor carriers and chest rigs, infringe a patent related to a lightweight, MOLLE-compatible accessory attachment system.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns tactical gear, specifically improving upon the widely used PALS/MOLLE webbing system by creating a lighter alternative using a composite fabric with laser-cut slots instead of sewn-on nylon loops.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit and its alleged infringement since at least July 5, 2016, based on an email sent from Plaintiff Crye's CEO to Defendant's CEO.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-01-14 | ’436 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-01-24 | Date of Defendant's instructional YouTube video |
| 2015-11-03 | ’436 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-07-05 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement |
| 2018-03-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,173,436 - “MOLLE COMPATIBLE LIGHTWEIGHT GARMENT”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,173,436, “MOLLE COMPATIBLE LIGHTWEIGHT GARMENT,” issued November 3, 2015 (the “’436 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional military and police load-carrying vests, such as those using the MOLLE/PALS system, as being heavy due to the use of backing fabric with rows of sewn-on nylon webbing (ʼ436 Patent, col. 1:31-50). This weight can reduce the speed, agility, and endurance of the wearer (ʼ436 Patent, col. 1:25-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention replaces the traditional sewn-webbing system with a "unitary bearing frame assembly" (ʼ436 Patent, col. 2:25-27). This assembly is a composite material made from a stiff "substrate" layer adhered to an "exterior layer" (ʼ436 Patent, col. 2:61-63). Laser-cutting or die-cutting is used to create openings in this composite sheet, forming a "skeleton" of horizontal and vertical bands that mimic the PALS grid (ʼ436 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 2:54-57). This technique eliminates the weight of the backing fabric and webbing while maintaining compatibility with standard MOLLE accessories.
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for significantly reducing the weight of load-bearing equipment while retaining modularity and compatibility with the vast ecosystem of existing MOLLE/PALS accessories (ʼ436 Patent, col. 4:8-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11 are:
- A load supporting garment and accessory arrangement, comprising:
- elements arranged to engage a wearer and to support the garment thereon; and
- a bearing frame assembly connected to said elements, the bearing frame assembly having a substrate and a printed exterior layer adhered to the substrate,
- the bearing frame having portions defining a plurality of laser cut openings which extend through the substrate and the exterior layer,
- and portions between two vertically spaced openings which define a first horizontal band above a second horizontal band,
- the substrate being a material different from the material of the exterior layer,
- the first horizontal band being spaced from the second horizontal band such that MOLLE accessories may be received and attached to the horizontal bands; and
- further comprising an accessory, wherein the accessory comprises: a rear wall; a strap fastened to the rear wall; and the strap extending around one of the first and the second horizontal bands of the garment to thereby mount the accessory to the garment.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the “Accused Platforms,” which include the Assaulter Armor Carrier (AAC) System, the JOKER - Jungle Operations Airborne Capable Chest Rig, and the Modular Chest Rig 6/12™, sold in combination with compatible “Accused Accessories” such as pouches and pockets (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint provides an image of the AAC System as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶11, p. 4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Platforms are modular, lightweight load-carriage systems designed to be compatible with standard MOLLE-style pouches (Compl. ¶16). They utilize what Defendant calls the "6/12™ pocket attachment system," which is described as a "design-engineered solution that meets the need for modular, lightweight load-carriage platforms and pockets" by using "laser cut precision attachment points" (Compl. ¶26, quoting Exhibit H). This system is alleged to achieve a 20%-40% weight reduction compared to standard attachment systems (Compl. ¶26, quoting Exhibit H). The complaint includes a visual from Defendant's materials depicting the AAC with accessories attached (Compl. ¶27, p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’436 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| elements arranged to engage a wearer and to support the garment thereon | The Accused Products, such as the AAC, include a cummerbund and shoulder harness system that engages the wearer. | ¶25 | col. 2:27-30 |
| a bearing frame assembly connected to said elements, the bearing frame assembly having a substrate and a printed exterior layer adhered to the substrate | The AAC has a chest rig portion with a printed exterior layer (e.g., camouflage) adhering to an interior layer. | ¶26 | col. 5:10-14 |
| the bearing frame having portions defining a plurality of laser cut openings which extend through the substrate and the exterior layer, and portions between two vertically spaced openings which define a first horizontal band above a second horizontal band | The AAC has laser-cut openings that are vertically spaced to define horizontal bands configured to receive MOLLE accessories. | ¶26 | col. 5:15-24 |
| the substrate being a material different from the material of the exterior layer | The exterior and interior layers of the AAC are alleged to be made from different materials. | ¶26 | col. 5:24-26 |
| the first horizontal band being spaced from the second horizontal band such that MOLLE accessories may be received and attached to the horizontal bands | The horizontal bands on the AAC are allegedly configured to receive MOLLE accessories. | ¶26 | col. 5:26-30 |
| further comprising an accessory, wherein the accessory comprises: a rear wall; a strap fastened to the rear wall | The Accused Accessories sold for use with the Platforms feature a rear wall and a strap fastened to the rear wall, as depicted in a diagram from Defendant's website. The diagram shows pocket attachment tabs sliding into the 6/12 field (Compl. ¶29, Exhibit H). | ¶¶27-29 | col. 5:30-35 |
| the strap extending around one of the first and the second horizontal bands of the garment to thereby mount the accessory to the garment | The Accused Accessories allegedly mount to the AAC by means of the strap extending around the horizontal bands, as shown in Defendant's instructional diagrams. | ¶30 | col. 5:35-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "6/12™" system, which appears to use tabs that "Fold into Place" (Compl. ¶28, Exhibit H), meets the limitation "the strap extending around one of the first and the second horizontal bands." The interpretation of "extending around" will be critical.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused products have a "substrate and a printed exterior layer adhered to the substrate" where the materials are "different" (Compl. ¶26). Discovery will likely focus on the actual material composition and construction of the accused products to determine if they are a composite laminate as described in the patent, or a single-layer material.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substrate"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the patent's described weight-saving innovation. The nature of the substrate provides the stiffness that allows for wider openings between attachment points. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification discloses specific high-performance materials (e.g., TEGRIS®, Hypalon) for the substrate, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction (ʼ436 Patent, col. 5:65; col. 3:1-4).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not limit the "substrate" to any specific material, only that it is "different from the material of the exterior layer" (ʼ436 Patent, col. 6:24-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly highlights specific examples, such as a "polypropylene thermoplastic composite" (TEGRIS®) or "chlorosulfonated polyethylene material" (Hypalon), as forming the substrate (ʼ436 Patent, col. 5:65; col. 3:1-4).
The Term: "adhered to"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the relationship between the two layers of the claimed composite fabric. The method of bonding is a key manufacturing step. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's layers are "adhered" in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and could encompass various forms of bonding.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of adhesion using a "sheet of heat fused adhesive" (ʼ436 Patent, col. 5:39-40; col. 3:10-17), suggesting a specific type of thermal bonding process rather than just sewing or other forms of attachment.
The Term: "the strap extending around one of the first and the second horizontal bands"
- Context and Importance: This limitation describes the mechanism of attachment for the accessory. The complaint provides a diagram of the accused "6/12™" system where "Attachment Tabs Fold into Place" (Compl. ¶28, Exhibit H). Whether this "folding" action constitutes "extending around" will be a determinative issue for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent itself, when describing an accessory, mentions a strap passing "around the loop" to engage fasteners, which could be read broadly to cover various securing actions (ʼ436 Patent, col. 4:59-64).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "extending around" could be construed to require a weaving or encircling motion similar to traditional PALS attachments, which the accused tab-and-tuck system may not perform.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It supports this by alleging Defendant provides "sales, marketing, and related educational and training materials" that instruct and encourage customers to combine the Accused Platforms and Accused Accessories in an infringing manner, specifically citing a 2012 YouTube video and website marketing (Compl. ¶¶14-16, 31-32).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It specifically pleads that Plaintiff Crye's CEO sent an email to Defendant's CEO on July 5, 2016, informing Defendant that it was infringing the ’436 patent (Compl. ¶19). Continued alleged infringement after this date is asserted as evidence of willfulness (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "substrate" and "adhered to" be construed broadly enough to read on the specific laminated or single-layer materials and bonding methods used in Defendant's "6/12™" products?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused "6/12™" system, where tabs "Fold into Place," perform the same function in the same way as the claimed "strap extending around" the horizontal bands, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the mechanism of attachment?