DCT
2:10-cv-00323
The Turtle Company INC. v. World Wrestling ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Turtle Company Inc. (New Jersey)
- Defendant: World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kaliko & Associates, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00323, D.N.J., 01/20/2010
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the defendants have placed the accused products into a distribution network and stream of commerce directed at the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of branded stretchable book covers infringes a patent related to an adjustable book jacket made from elastic material.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns reusable, adjustable book covers made from stretchable fabric, designed to fit a variety of book sizes without the need for cutting or taping.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-01-12 | U.S. Patent No. 5,470,109 Priority Date (Filing) |
| 1995-11-28 | U.S. Patent No. 5,470,109 Issued |
| 2010-01-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,470,109 - "Adjustable Book Jacket and Method for Making the Same", issued November 28, 1995
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional methods of covering books, such as with wrapping paper and tape, as time-consuming and inconvenient (’109 Patent, col. 1:9-19). It also notes that prior art adjustable book jackets failed to "seamlessly cover[] 100% of the external area of the hard cover" or solve other aesthetic and functional issues (’109 Patent, col. 1:45-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an adjustable book jacket fabricated from a single piece of elastic material, such as LYCRA-spandex, that is first cut into a specific diamond shape (’109 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This diamond-shaped fabric is then folded and stitched in a particular way to form a rectangular jacket with integrated pockets. This construction method is designed to "neatly and snugly" cover books of various sizes, eliminate visible seams on the exterior, and provide a "spine locking mechanism" to securely grasp the corners of the book's spine (’109 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-16).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide an economical and efficient method for producing an aesthetically superior, one-size-fits-many elastic book cover that provides complete coverage, which was an asserted shortcoming in the field at the time (’109 Patent, col. 2:20-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more of the claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶18.A). Independent claim 1 is foundational.
- Independent Claim 1: An adjustable book jacket comprising:
- The jacket is fabricated in an elastic material.
- The jacket has a front panel and a back panel and is rectangular in shape.
- The front panel has an open seam extending across its width, forming a left hand pocket and a right hand pocket.
- The left hand pocket has two seams stitched closed, each running in a "substantially diagonal direction" from a corner of the jacket to an edge of the open seam.
- The right hand pocket similarly has two seams stitched closed, each running in a "substantially diagonal direction" from a corner of the jacket to an edge of the open seam.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its broad allegation of infringing "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶18.A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies a series of "Stretch Book Cover" products, including the "Hardys Mirror Stretch Book Cover," "Shawn Michaels Faith Stretch Book Cover," "John Cena 8-Bit Stretch Book Cover," and others (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are stretchable book covers marketed and sold by World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) (Compl. ¶2, ¶9). Based on their naming convention, the products function as elastic covers for books, designed to stretch to fit. The complaint alleges these products are sold and imported into the United States, suggesting they are commercially available consumer goods (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations beyond identifying the accused products. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory that can be inferred from the complaint's general allegations against the named "Stretch Book Cover" products.
'109 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) said jacket being fabricated in an elastic material; | The accused products are identified as "Stretch Book Cover[s]," implying they are made of an elastic or stretchable material. | ¶9 | col. 7:11-12 |
| (b) said jacket having a front panel and a back panel; (c) said jacket being rectangular in shape... | The accused products are book covers, which inherently have front and back panels and are generally rectangular to fit standard books. | ¶9 | col. 7:13-19 |
| (d) said front panel having an open seam extending substantially the full latitudinal width of said front panel so as to form a left hand pocket and a right hand pocket for the placement therein of a left hand and right hand cover of a book; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | -- | col. 7:20-24 |
| (e) said left hand pocket having two seams stitched closed, a first one of said two left hand pocket seams being located between a beginning point on the top left hand corner of said rectangular shape stitched closed in a substantially diagonal direction to an end point on a first edge of said open seam, and a second one of said two left hand pocket seams being located between the bottom left hand corner...stitched closed in a substantially diagonal direction to an end point on said first edge of said open seam; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | -- | col. 7:25-34 |
| said right hand pocket having two seams stitched closed... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | -- | col. 7:35-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused "Stretch Book Covers" are constructed according to the specific method and structure required by the claims. Specifically, discovery will be needed to determine if the accused products have the claimed "open seam" across the front panel and the four "substantially diagonal" stitched seams that create the pockets, as this specific construction is central to the patent's novelty (’109 Patent, col. 4:45-62).
- Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of detail raises the question of whether the infringement read is based on the final product's general function or its specific claimed structure. The defense may argue that while their products are stretchable book covers, they do not possess the precise pocket and seam configuration recited in claim 1.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substantially diagonal direction" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the orientation of the four stitched seams that form the pockets. The precise angle and path of these seams appear critical to the "spine locking" feature described as an essential benefit of the invention (’109 Patent, col. 3:10-16). The scope of "substantially" will be a key factor in the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "substantially" itself implies that the direction need not be a perfect 45-degree diagonal but can deviate to some degree. The patent does not provide a specific angular range, which a plaintiff might argue supports a flexible, functional definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description show stitches that run directly from the corners of the rectangular jacket to a central point (or points along a central seam) (’109 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:56-62). A defendant could argue that "substantially diagonal" must be construed in light of this embodiment, meaning a path that connects a corner to a point near the jacket's geometric center.
The Term: "open seam" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This "open seam" is the entry point for the book's covers into the pockets. It is created by cutting the initial diamond-shaped fabric blank (’109 Patent, col. 4:48-51). Whether the accused products have a feature that meets this structural definition will be crucial.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that any opening or slit in the front panel that allows for the insertion of a book cover qualifies as an "open seam," regardless of how it was manufactured.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes this seam as being created by making specific cuts (lines 12 and 14 in Fig. 1) in the fabric blank before folding and stitching (’109 Patent, col. 4:48-51). A defendant could argue that the term is limited to a seam created by this specific process, as opposed to, for example, two separate pieces of fabric being joined to leave a gap.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§271(b) and (c) (Compl. ¶9). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these allegations, such as identifying any specific instructions or components provided by the Defendant that would encourage or enable direct infringement by a third party.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "willfully and deliberately" infringed the ’109 patent (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not state a basis for this allegation, such as whether it is based on pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief requests treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 (Compl. ¶C, p.3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the "notice pleading" style of the complaint, the case presents several fundamental questions that will need to be resolved through discovery and claim construction.
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the accused WWE "Stretch Book Cover" products, which are likely mass-produced consumer goods, actually incorporate the specific pocket structure of claim 1, which is formed by four "substantially diagonal" stitched seams originating at the jacket's corners?
- The case will also depend on claim scope: How will the court construe terms of degree like "substantially diagonal"? The patent specification heavily emphasizes a "spine locking" function that results from this geometry, raising the question of whether the term will be interpreted narrowly to require a structure that achieves this specific function.
- An initial evidentiary question will be one of proof: What evidence will Plaintiff be able to produce to demonstrate that the internal construction of the accused products, which is not externally visible, maps onto the specific limitations of the asserted claims?