Briggs & Riley Travelware LLC v. Travel Caddy Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Briggs & Riley Travelware, LLC. (New York)
  • Defendant: Travel Caddy, Inc. d/b/a Travelon (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scully, Scott, Murphy, & Presser, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-07290, E.D.N.Y., 12/21/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Travelon’s alleged business in the district, including sales through local retailers and its interactive commercial website.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a luggage manufacturer, seeks a declaratory judgment that its backpack products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to expandable luggage pockets, and further that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves designs for expandable external pockets on luggage, intended to provide variable storage capacity for items requiring convenient access.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed by Briggs & Riley following receipt of a demand letter from Travelon alleging infringement. The complaint alleges that Travelon has asserted the patent-in-suit against at least seven other companies since 2014, suggesting a pattern of enforcement activity.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-09-25	'636 Patent Priority Date
2004-06-01	'636 Patent Issue Date
2018-10-10	Travelon sends demand letter to Briggs & Riley
2018-12-21	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,742,636, MESH EXPANSION POCKET FOR LUGGAGE, issued June 1, 2004.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a need for improved external pockets on luggage to provide travelers with prompt and easy access to items such as beverages, food, and cell phones, without needing to open the main luggage compartment (’636 Patent, col. 1:16-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an expandable pocket integrated into the side panel of a piece of luggage. In its default state, the pocket lies flat and is secured by a fastener, such as a zipper. When the zipper is opened, an internal flexible mesh panel is revealed, allowing the pocket to expand outwards and create storage space. A flexible ribbon member is included at the top of the mesh panel to control the extent of the opening and provide a finished edge (’636 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-62). This design provides concealable, variable-capacity storage.
• Technical Importance: The described construction offers a method to incorporate on-demand external storage into soft-sided luggage without adding permanent bulk or altering the luggage’s profile when the pocket is not in use (’636 Patent, col. 1:23-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 4 as being at issue (Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 recites, in part:
  • An "open topped expansion pocket"
  • A "first flexible material panel" and a "second flexible material panel" attached to a luggage side panel
  • A "fastener mechanism" to join the two panels together
  • A "mesh fabric panel" connecting the first and second panels on the inside
  • A "flexible ribbon member" at the top edge of the mesh panel
• Independent Claim 4 recites, in part:
  • An "open topped expansion pocket"
  • A "first flexible material panel" attached to a luggage side panel edge
  • A "fastener mechanism" along an edge of that first panel
  • A "mesh fabric panel" connecting the first panel to another side panel edge
  • A "flexible ribbon member" at the top edge connecting the first panel to the side panel edge

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint specifically identifies the “Kinzie Street Medium Backpack (Product No. ZP160-10)” and alludes to “four additional allegedly infringing styles” that are not named (Compl. ¶10-11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides limited detail on the functionality of the accused backpacks. The core of the non-infringement argument is the assertion that the Briggs & Riley products feature a "non-infringing 'closed top pocket' or 'closed pocket'" (Compl. ¶15). This feature is contrasted with the patent’s requirement for an “open top expansion pocket” (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not describe the commercial importance of the products, but alleges that Travelon's infringement accusations have "placed a cloud over Briggs & Riley's business" (Compl. ¶7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, it outlines the plaintiff's basis for believing its products do not infringe. The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element analysis or claim chart.

The central non-infringement theory is that the accused backpacks do not meet the “open topped expansion pocket” limitation present in both independent claims 1 and 4 of the ’636 Patent (Compl. ¶15, ¶18). Briggs & Riley asserts that its products instead utilize a “closed top pocket,” which it contends is technically and legally distinct from the claimed invention (Compl. ¶15). The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused products “do not possess all the elements of the claims of the ’636 Patent claims 1 and 4” but does not provide further specifics on other potential points of non-infringement (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the court will be the proper construction of the claim term "open topped expansion pocket." The dispute raises the question of whether a pocket that can be covered or closed after expansion (e.g., via a flap or top zipper) falls within the scope of a pocket described as "open topped."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical features of the accused "closed top pocket." A key factual question will be how the Briggs & Riley pocket is constructed and operates, and whether that operation is materially different from the pocket described in the patent's specification and figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "open topped expansion pocket"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in both asserted independent claims (cl. 1, 4) and is the explicit basis for Briggs & Riley’s non-infringement argument (Compl. ¶15, ¶18). The outcome of the infringement dispute may depend entirely on the court’s interpretation of this phrase.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the pocket is designed to hold items like a "water bottle, cell phone, or other item," implying the primary function is containment after being opened (’636 Patent, col. 2:63-65). A party could argue that "open topped" merely distinguishes the pocket from a sealed container and does not preclude the presence of a closing mechanism like a flap, so long as the top can be opened to insert items.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures that depict the pocket in an expanded, in-use state show an opening with no cover or lid (’636 Patent, FIGS. 3, 5). The specification describes a flexible "ribbon" that "forms the upper edge of the mesh" panel, which could be interpreted as defining the final, uncovered top boundary of the pocket (’636 Patent, col. 2:58-60). This may support an argument that the claim requires a pocket that remains uncovered at its top.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action by a product manufacturer concerning its own products; as such, the complaint does not address indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint preemptively addresses the issue of willfulness by stating that “Prior to October 10, 2018, Briggs & Riley had no actual or constructive notice of the ’636 Patent” (Compl. ¶23). This allegation seeks to counter any potential future claim by Travelon for enhanced damages based on willful infringement for any conduct preceding the date of the demand letter.

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

This case appears to center on two fundamental patent law questions that the court will need to resolve.

• First, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term “open topped expansion pocket,” which is rooted in patent figures showing an uncovered opening, be legally construed to read on the accused backpacks that allegedly feature a “closed top pocket”? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive of the infringement question.

• Second, the case raises a question of validity: does the combination of a zipper, a mesh gusset, and a flexible ribbon to create an expandable side pocket represent a non-obvious invention under 35 U.S.C. §103, or was it a predictable solution that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of luggage design before September 2000?