DCT
2:25-cv-00909
Arrowhead Tactical Apparel LLC v. Ecommerce Innovations LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Arrowhead Tactical Apparel, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ecommerce Innovations, LLC d/b/a We The People Holsters (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Akerman LLP; Hillyer Legal, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00909, D. Nev., 05/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada because the Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and distributes and sells the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Guardian Carry Joggers" infringe two patents related to athletic apparel featuring a specialized waistband designed for the concealed carry of a firearm.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the market need for athletic-style clothing, such as joggers or sweatpants, that can comfortably and securely support the weight of a holstered firearm without sagging or instability.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the '583 Patent in July 2022 and the patent application that led to the '294 Patent in September 2022, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-08-27 | '583 and '294 Patents' Earliest Priority Date |
| 2022-03-01 | U.S. Patent 11,259,583 Issue Date |
| 2022-07-XX | Alleged notice of '583 Patent provided to Defendant |
| 2022-09-XX | Alleged notice of application for '294 Patent provided to Defendant |
| 2023-06-13 | U.S. Patent 11,672,294 Issue Date |
| 2025-05-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,259,583 - "Apparel for Securing and Carrying an Object," issued March 1, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of safely and comfortably carrying a concealed firearm in lightweight athletic apparel, which lacks the structural integrity of traditional belted pants and can allow a holstered weapon to sag or move unstably during activity (’583 Patent, col. 1:20-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an article of clothing with a composite waistband designed to solve this problem. It features a "first portion" that provides the comfort and fit of typical athletic wear via an elastic band and drawstrings, combined with a "second portion" that incorporates a series of belt loops along the waistband's interior. These loops are designed to receive a separate, semi-rigid belt, creating a stable platform for a holster that is independent of the garment's softer structure (’583 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-14).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to merge the comfort and flexibility of athletic wear with the load-bearing functionality of a dedicated gun belt system.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 12 (Compl. ¶32, ¶45, ¶53).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An article of clothing with a waistband configured to carry an object.
- The waistband has a "first portion" forming the circumferential waist part.
- This first portion includes a first channel with an elastic band and a second channel with drawstrings.
- The waistband also has a "second portion" with a plurality of "evenly spaced" belt loops positioned along the first portion.
- These belt loops are configured to receive a belt assembly.
U.S. Patent No. 11,672,294 - "Apparel for Securing and Carrying an Object," issued June 13, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '294 Patent addresses the same technical problem as its parent '583 Patent: the inadequacy of standard athletic wear for concealed carry applications ('294 Patent, col. 1:20-62).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is nearly identical to that of the '583 Patent, describing a dual-system waistband with channels for an elastic band and drawstrings, as well as a separate set of belt loops for a load-bearing belt. However, the claims of the '294 Patent are more specific, reciting not just the apparel but the combination of the apparel with the firearm-related equipment it is designed to carry, such as a "holster with a handgun stored therein" and a "holster clip" ('294 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This patent narrows the claimed invention to the complete concealed carry system, encompassing both the specialized garment and the holster it is intended to accommodate.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9 (Compl. ¶37, ¶45, ¶53).
- Independent Claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1 of the '583 Patent but adds two key limitations:
- The waistband is configured to carry "at least one holster with a handgun stored therein."
- The claimed article of clothing requires that "the at least one holster comprises at least one holster clip for releasably securing the at least one holster to at least one of the waistband or the belt assembly."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Guardian Carry Joggers with Slimline Gun Belt" ("Infringing Product") (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a pair of joggers designed with attached belt loops that permit a wearer to add a belt, thereby facilitating the carrying of objects (Compl. ¶31). The product is marketed and sold on Defendant's website and is alleged to compete directly with Plaintiff's concealed carry apparel products (Compl. ¶27, ¶30). The complaint includes a photograph from Defendant's marketing showing the joggers with a belt and a holstered firearm secured inside the waistband (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'583 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an article of clothing, comprising: a waistband configured to secure and carry at least one object on a wearer's waist... | The Guardian Joggers are pants, an article of clothing, with a waistband for carrying objects. | ¶33-34, p. 5-6 | col. 2:1-3 |
| a first portion configured to form a circumferential waist part of the article of clothing and include | The waistband of the Guardian Joggers includes a first portion forming a circumferential waist part. | ¶33, p. 6 | col. 5:4-7 |
| at least a first channel and a second channel, | The first portion of the waistband includes a first channel and a second channel, as shown in annotated photographs. | ¶33, p. 7 | col. 2:4-6 |
| the first channel having an elastic band therethrough, | The first channel contains an elastic band. | ¶33, p. 7-8 | col. 2:4-6 |
| and the second channel having drawstrings therethrough; | The second channel contains a drawstring. | ¶33, p. 8 | col. 2:5-6 |
| and a second portion configured to include a plurality of belt loops evenly spaced and positioned along the first portion of the waistband, | The waistband includes a second portion with multiple, evenly spaced belt loops. | ¶33, p. 9 | col. 2:6-10 |
| wherein the plurality of belt loops are configured to receive a belt assembly therethrough. | The belt loops are configured to receive a belt assembly. | ¶33, p. 9 | col. 2:10-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be the construction of "first portion" and "second portion." The defense may argue the accused product has a single, integrated waistband, whereas the patent claims may be interpreted to require two structurally or functionally distinct portions. The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the accused product's interior waistband, labeling distinct areas as the "First portion" and "Second portion" (Compl. p. 9).
- Technical Questions: The claim requires belt loops to be "evenly spaced." The complaint alleges this is met by providing a photograph and asserting that the distances between four labeled belt loops are equal (Compl. p. 9). The factual accuracy of this "even spacing" on the accused product, and the legal standard required by the term, will be a point of dispute.
'294 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a waistband configured to secure and carry at least one holster with a handgun stored therein on a wearers' waist... | The Guardian Joggers include a waistband configured to secure and carry a holster with a handgun. | ¶38, p. 11 | col. 2:11-14 |
| [Elements (b) through (h) are substantially identical to the '583 Patent analysis above] | [Allegations are substantially identical to the '583 Patent analysis above] | ¶38, p. 12-14 | col. 2:3-10 |
| wherein the at least one holster comprises at least one holster clip for releasably securing the at least one holster to at least one of the waistband or the belt assembly. | This limitation is alleged to define the type of holster the waistband is configured to accommodate. The complaint argues the waistband meets this element by being able to accommodate a clipped holster. | ¶38, p. 14 | col. 2:12-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The most significant point of contention for the '294 Patent will likely be limitation (i). The claim is for an "article of clothing," but this limitation defines a feature of a separate product, "the at least one holster." The complaint's claim chart asserts that this limitation "does not require any further configuring of the waistband so long as the waistband can accommodate a clipped holster" (Compl. p. 14). This interpretation, which reads the limitation as a statement of compatibility rather than a required feature of the clothing itself, will be a central legal question for claim construction and infringement. The complaint includes a photograph illustrating how a clipped holster is secured inside the waistband of the accused product to support this theory (Compl. p. 14).
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for the other elements mirrors that of the '583 Patent. The complaint provides nearly identical visual evidence, including annotated photographs showing the alleged first and second channels (Compl. p. 12) and the elastic band and drawstring (Compl. p. 13).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "a first portion" / "a second portion" (from claim 1 of both patents)
- Context and Importance: This terminology establishes the fundamental architecture of the claimed waistband. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on whether the accused product's waistband, which may be a single piece of fabric, can be conceptually divided into the two "portions" required by the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a functional or locational distinction rather than a requirement for separate physical components. It describes an "exterior portion 30 and an interior portion 32," implying the portions are defined by their position relative to the wearer, not by their method of manufacture ('583 Patent, col. 5:1-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the "second portion" as having a ‘broken sheath’ design that inverts the typical spatial ratio between skinny belt loops” could be argued to imply a specific, unconventional structure for the second portion that is distinct from a standard waistband construction ('583 Patent, col. 5:30-34).
Term: "wherein the at least one holster comprises at least one holster clip..." (from '294 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this "wherein" clause is critical. It defines a feature of the holster, not the clothing, yet it is a limitation in a claim for an "article of clothing." The case may turn on whether this makes the claim indefinite or, if definite, whether the clothing must be sold with such a holster to infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff's likely view): The patent states the clothing is "designed to provide a concealed carry of an object (e.g., a handgun) around a waist of a wearer" ('294 Patent, col. 1:17-19). This supports an interpretation that the claim covers an article of clothing designed for use with a clipped holster, as the complaint alleges (Compl. p. 14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant's likely view): Claim language is typically read as requiring the presence of the recited elements. A defendant could argue that for direct infringement of the "article of clothing" claim, the accused product as sold must include a holster with a clip, or that the claim is invalid for indefiniteness because it is unclear how an article of clothing can "comprise" a feature of a separate holster.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
- Inducement: The allegation is based on Defendant's specific marketing and instructions that allegedly encourage customers to use the joggers for concealed carry with a holster, such as promoting the "[i]nner belt loops placed in optimal position for concealed carry" (Compl. ¶48, ¶50).
- Contributory Infringement: This is based on the allegation that the accused product is a "special purpose product" specifically designed to practice the patent and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶54, ¶56-57).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of both patents. The complaint states Defendant was notified of the '583 Patent in July 2022 and the application for the '294 Patent in September 2022, long before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶43, ¶61).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural definition: can the accused jogger's integrated waistband be construed to meet the "first portion" and "second portion" limitations of the claims, or will the court find this language requires a more distinct two-part construction not present in the accused product?
- A critical question of claim scope in the '294 Patent litigation will be the interpretation of the "wherein the... holster comprises... a holster clip" clause. The court must decide if this limitation requires the accused "article of clothing" to be sold with a specific type of holster to directly infringe, or if it is sufficient that the clothing is merely designed and intended for use with such a holster.
- A key evidentiary battle will concern contributory infringement: can the accused "Guardian Carry Joggers" be considered a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses, or is the specific combination of jogger-style pants with an integrated belt-loop system so tailored to the patented function that it effectively has no other primary purpose?