DCT
7:25-cv-00375
Kore Essentials Inc v. Vet Life Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kore Essentials, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Vet-Life, Inc., d.b.a. Savage Tacticians (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mincey Bell Milnor; LeJeune Law, PC
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00375, E.D.N.C., 02/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's principal place of business being in the district, where it conducts business and has allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ratchet-style belts infringe a patent related to a multi-layered belt construction with a monolithic insert.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns ratchet belts, which use a track of notches and a pawl in the buckle for fine-tuned adjustment, often prized for durability and rigidity in applications like tactical or gun belts.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is part of a family of applications, including continuations and a continuation-in-part, tracing back to a 2014 application. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff informed Defendant of the infringement via counsel prior to filing suit, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-10-28 | Earliest Priority Date ('522 Patent) |
| 2014-03-18 | Filing Date of parent application No. 14/218,887 |
| 2016-01-27 | Filing Date of parent application No. 15/008,394 |
| 2016-03-10 | Filing Date of parent application No. 15/066,302 |
| 2018-03-20 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,522 |
| 2025-02-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,918,522 - "Ratchet Belt System and Related Accessories"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,918,522, "Ratchet Belt System and Related Accessories," issued March 20, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional ratcheting belts can have release levers that are "cumbersome and difficult to operate" and are typically limited to a single "track" of notches, precluding reversible designs ('522 Patent, col. 1:36-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a ratchet belt system characterized by a specific three-part belt construction. It comprises a first belt layer, a second belt layer, and a "monolithic insert" disposed between them ('522 Patent, col. 6:40-49). This insert, which can be integrated with or distinct from the notch strip, is intended to provide rigidity and support, as described in the detailed description ('522 Patent, col. 4:41-45, col. 6:40-49). The layers are combined to embed the insert, creating a durable, reinforced belt structure suitable for demanding uses.
- Technical Importance: This multi-layer construction with an embedded rigid insert addresses a need for increased stiffness in belts used for applications like carrying a firearm, where preventing sag is critical ('522 Patent, claim 3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 ('Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A belt with first and second ends and a notch strip near the second end.
- A buckle with a ratcheting mechanism that attaches to the first end and slideably receives the second end.
- The belt comprises a first belt layer, a second belt layer, and a monolithic insert disposed between them.
- The first and second belt layers are combined with a mating element to form the belt.
- The monolithic insert is embedded between the first and second layers.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims and supplement its infringement theories (Compl. ¶15-16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The STMC Black Camo EDC Ratchet Belt, the Black Nylon EDC Ratchet Belt, and the Gray Nylon Ratchet Belt (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are ratchet-style belts sold by Defendant for consumer use (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that these products incorporate the patented technology and that Defendant has generated "significant sales" from them (Compl. ¶17). The complaint's infringement theory is based on "publicly available information," suggesting the internal construction of the belts, which is central to the asserted claims, may not be fully known to the Plaintiff without discovery (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products meet all limitations of Claim 1 of the '522 Patent but does not include the referenced claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶15). The core of the infringement allegation centers on the internal construction of the accused belts.
'522 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a belt extending from a first end to a second end opposite the first end, the belt comprising a notch strip forming a plurality of notches therein, wherein the notch strip is disposed adjacent to the second end of the belt | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are ratchet belts that necessarily include a belt strap with a notch strip (Compl. ¶11, 15). | ¶11, 15 | col. 3:5-16 |
| a buckle comprising a ratcheting mechanism, the buckle being configured to attach to the belt at the first end thereof and further configured to slideably receive the second end of the belt through the buckle for creating a releasable engagement between the notch strip of the belt and the ratcheting mechanism of the buckle | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are ratchet belts that necessarily include a buckle with a ratcheting mechanism (Compl. ¶11, 15). | ¶11, 15 | col. 3:7-12 |
| said belt comprises a first belt layer, a second belt layer, and a monolithic insert disposed between said first and second belt layers | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products embody the claims of the '522 patent, which requires this three-part construction. | ¶14, 15 | col. 6:40-44 |
| wherein the first and second belt layers are combined with a mating element to form the belt | The complaint alleges the Accused Products embody the claims of the '522 patent, which requires this feature. | ¶14, 15 | col. 6:44-46 |
| and wherein the monolithic insert is embedded between the first and second layers. | The complaint alleges the Accused Products embody the claims of the '522 patent, which requires the insert to be embedded. | ¶14, 15 | col. 6:47-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the internal reinforcing material in the Accused Products qualifies as a "monolithic insert" as that term is used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The primary factual question is one of construction: do the Accused Products actually contain the claimed three-part structure of a first layer, a second layer, and a distinct "monolithic insert" embedded between them? The complaint's reliance on "publicly available information" suggests this will be a key area for discovery (Compl. ¶15).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "monolithic insert"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the asserted independent claim and appears to be the primary point of novelty. The entire infringement case may depend on whether the internal structure of the Accused Products falls within the proper construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the insert's function as providing "rigidity and support" ('522 Patent, col. 4:41-42). A party could argue that any single-piece reinforcing element placed between two outer layers meets this definition, regardless of its specific material composition or shape.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "monolithic" itself suggests being formed from a single, uniform piece. Further, the patent distinguishes between embodiments where the notch strip is "integrated with the monolithic insert" (claim 4) and where it is "distinct from the monolithic insert" (claim 5). A defendant may argue this distinction implies the "monolithic insert" is a specific structural component separate from the notch strip itself, and that the term should be limited to the rigid support structures shown in the patent's figures, not just any reinforcing core.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating Defendant's customers directly infringe by using the Accused Products as intended (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges both pre-suit and post-suit willfulness. The basis for pre-suit knowledge is an allegation that "Plaintiff informed Defendant of the Accused Products' infringement of the '522 Patent via counsel prior to filing this Complaint" and that Defendant "refused to stop" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also points to the patent notice on Plaintiff's own website as potential grounds for knowledge in the marketplace (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to hinge on two primary questions for the court:
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: what is the proper scope of the term "monolithic insert"? The case will likely turn on whether this term requires a specific type of single-piece, uniform reinforcing core, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other forms of internal reinforcement used in the accused belts.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: through discovery, can Plaintiff demonstrate that the internal construction of the Accused Products contains the specific three-part structure—a first belt layer, a second belt layer, and a "monolithic insert" embedded between them—as required by Claim 1?