AptusTech LLC v. Trimfoot Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AptusTech LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Trimfoot Co., LLC (Missouri)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
• Case Identification: 4:20-cv-00478, E.D. Mo., 06/08/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and committing acts of patent infringement within the district, including selling the accused footwear.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s footwear products featuring interchangeable ornaments infringe a patent related to systems and methods for user-selectable ornamentation on apparel.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the fashion accessories market, addressing consumer demand for customizable products by providing a mechanical system to securely and removably attach decorative elements to footwear.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent-in-suit as early as September 2016 following a conversation with the named inventor, and received a subsequent notification letter from Plaintiff's counsel in August 2018. The complaint also references a past, unrelated patent infringement accusation against the Defendant by a third party, Rome Fastener.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-07-06	Earliest Priority Date for ’284 Patent
2009-01-01	Predecessor company (Lindsay Phillips) began selling accused-style products
2013-03-05	’284 Patent Issue Date
2013-01-01	Defendant Trimfoot acquired Lindsay Phillips
2016-09-22	Defendant allegedly learned of ’284 Patent from inventor
2018-08-29	Plaintiff allegedly sent notification letter to Defendant
2020-06-08	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,387,284 - "Footwear, Clothing and Other Apparel With Interchangeable Toe and Heel Members or Other Ornaments and Related Methods and Systems," issued March 5, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a market need for customizable apparel that avoids the high cost and permanence of custom-ordered items (e.g., NIKEiD®) and the durability issues of pasted-on designs. It also notes that existing removable charms, like those for Crocs® shoes, require proprietary perforations in the apparel, limiting their applicability. (’284 Patent, col. 1:25-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system for attaching interchangeable ornaments to clothing. The system consists of a "base anchoring element" that is integrated with an article of clothing, and a separate "ornamentation element" that has a corresponding "attachment element." The two parts are designed to engage removably but securely, with the attachment mechanism providing both "lateral and vertical resistance" to prevent accidental detachment. (’284 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:11-28). The attachment point is located on an inner surface of the ornament, away from its edges, to maintain a clean aesthetic.
• Technical Importance: This system provides a method for consumers to personalize apparel with robust, interchangeable ornaments without permanently altering the item or requiring special perforations. (’284 Patent, col. 1:60-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 13 (a system). (Compl. ¶¶12-13).
• Independent Claim 13 (System) breaks down into the following essential elements:
  • A "base anchoring element" integrated with and covering part of an article of clothing, which has a "fastening element."
  • An "ornamentation element" with an "attachment element" for "fixed removable fastening engagement" with the base element's fastening element.
  • The attachment element is positioned on an "inner surface area" of the ornament, "distanced from peripheral ends."
  • The attachment element has elements configured to provide both "lateral and vertical resistance" to prevent unintended removal.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites the steps of providing and attaching the components of the system described in Claim 13. (Compl. ¶13).
• The complaint notes that dependent claims, such as claim 14 (specifying the article of clothing is footwear), are also infringed, and reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶¶12, 34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are footwear products sold under the "Lindsay Phillips" brand name, with the "Kelli Sandal" identified as a specific example. (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The complaint also lists dozens of other allegedly infringing products by name and SKU. (Compl. ¶34).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are sandals and shoes that feature a system for attaching and removing decorative ornaments. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges this system consists of a "square receiver located on the tongue of the sandal," identified as the "base anchoring element," and "snap on beads," identified as the "ornamentation element." (Compl. ¶¶17, 19). The mechanism is alleged to be a "rivet type device" containing a "spring-like wire" that functions as the "fastening device." (Compl. ¶¶21-22). The complaint includes an image of the sandal, a separate ornament, and the base receiver on the shoe strap. (Compl. ¶16, p. 5 image). The ornaments are allegedly selectable for purchase on the Defendant's website. (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’284 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A system of user selectable ornamentation comprising at least one base anchoring element configured for integration with and covering a portion of an outer surface of an article of clothing...	The accused sandal has a "square receiver located on the tongue" which is identified as the base anchoring element. An image shows a close-up of this receiver.	¶¶17-18	col. 9:12-16
...and having at least one fastening element...	A two-piece rivet device inside the base anchoring element holds a "spring-like wire," which is alleged to be the fastening device. An image shows this spring-like wire component.	¶22	col. 9:15-16
...and at least one ornamentation element having an attachment element configured for fixed removable fastening engagement...	The accused products include "snap on beads" (ornamentation element) with a "rectangular snap piece" on the back side (attachment element). An image depicts the back of an ornament showing this snap piece.	¶¶19-20	col. 9:16-20
...the attachment element being positioned on an inner surface area of the ornamentation element distanced from peripheral ends of the ornamentation element...	The complaint alleges the attachment element is centrally located on the inner surface of the ornament, away from its peripheral ends. An image of the ornament's underside supports this allegation.	¶¶26, 28	col. 9:21-24
...and the attachment element having elements configured to provide lateral and vertical resistance to prevent unintended removal of the ornamentation element...	The attachment element allegedly has "two ridges" for lateral resistance and a "snap head" that fits into the fastening element to provide vertical resistance.	¶27	col. 9:24-28

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "base anchoring element" reads on the accused assembly. The complaint alleges the "rivet device perforates a portion of the shoe," while the "base anchoring element is affixed atop" it. (Compl. ¶24). The patent's background distinguishes prior art that requires perforations, which may raise the question of whether an assembly that perforates the underlying article falls within the claim's intended scope.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that "two ridges" provide "lateral resistance" and a "snap head" provides "vertical resistance." (Compl. ¶27). The case may require evidence on whether these accused structures in fact perform the specific functions of providing both lateral and vertical resistance as required by the claim, particularly when compared to the patent’s exemplary tongue-in-groove embodiments. (’284 Patent, col. 6:15-18).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "base anchoring element"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a core piece of the claimed invention. Its construction is critical because it will determine whether the accused product's "square receiver" (Compl. ¶17) or the entire underlying rivet assembly (Compl. ¶24) is the proper point of analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the rivet assembly perforates the shoe, whereas the patent background appears to favor non-perforating solutions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the element be "configured for integration with" an article of clothing, which could be argued to encompass a variety of attachment methods, including one involving a perforating rivet. (’284 Patent, col. 9:12-14).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section distinguishes the invention from prior art like Jibbitz® charms that "require perforation in the shoes for attachment." (’284 Patent, col. 1:50-58). This language could support an interpretation that limits the "base anchoring element" to structures affixed to the surface without passing through it.

• The Term: "integrating"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the relationship between the "base anchoring element" and the article of clothing. Its meaning is tied to the scope of "base anchoring element." The question is whether affixing a receiver "atop" a rivet that perforates the shoe (Compl. ¶24) constitutes "integrating" in the manner claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term broadly, with examples of "non-removably integrating" including "sewing, stapling, riveting and non-releasable gluing." (’284 Patent, col. 4:56-59). The inclusion of "riveting" may support the plaintiff's infringement theory.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that in the context of the overall disclosure, "integrating" should be read to mean forming a part of the shoe's surface layer, consistent with the patent's goal of avoiding the functional and aesthetic drawbacks of perforation. (’284 Patent, col. 1:45-58).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides a "video demonstration" on its website that "teaches consumers how to attach, remove and interchange ornaments." (Compl. ¶35). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are "especially made or especially adapted" for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce, supported by a statement from the Defendant's website that its snaps "will only work on our snap shoes." (Compl. ¶¶36-37).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’284 Patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant was first made aware of the patent on September 22, 2016, via a conversation between a company representative and the named inventor, which was followed by the inventor sending a copy of the patent. It further alleges a formal notice letter was sent by Plaintiff's counsel on August 29, 2018. (Compl. ¶31).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "base anchoring element," as used in the patent, be construed to cover an assembly that relies on a rivet perforating the underlying footwear, particularly when the patent's background distinguishes prior art requiring such perforations?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement: does the accused snap mechanism, with its alleged "ridges" and "snap head," in fact provide both the "lateral and vertical resistance" required by the claim, or does a technical analysis reveal a functional difference from what the patent discloses and claims?
• The outcome of the willfulness claim will likely depend on the factual record surrounding the Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge, particularly the alleged communications with the inventor in 2016, and whether its subsequent conduct was objectively reckless.