DCT

1:22-cv-05994

CardShark LLC v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-05994, S.D.N.Y., 07/14/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement, solicited business, and conducted other business in the district. Defendant Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. is alleged to be a domestic corporation that resides in the district and has a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s branded phone cases infringe a patent related to a protective covering for a personal electronic device that incorporates a wallet-style pocket.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the consumer electronics accessories market, specifically multi-function cases that combine device protection with personal item storage like credit cards and currency.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,047,364. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-11-14 ’904 Patent Priority Date
2013-02-26 ’904 Patent Issue Date
2022-07-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,381,904 - "Protective Covering For Personal Electronic Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,381,904, "Protective Covering For Personal Electronic Device," issued February 26, 2013. (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a "long-felt need" to combine a protective case for a personal electronic device ("PDA") with the carrying capacity of a wallet, without adding significant bulk or requiring the user to remove the device from the case for use. ('904 Patent, col. 2:22-51). Prior art solutions were described as either simple protective "skins" with no storage, or bulky folio or bag-style cases that impeded access to the device's screen. ('904 Patent, col. 2:4-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a protective "wallet covering" that fits snugly around an electronic device. ('904 Patent, Abstract). It features a "primary window" on the front to allow continuous use of the device's screen and controls, and a rear face that incorporates a pocket for carrying items like credit cards or cash. ('904 Patent, col. 3:47-60). The design aims to protect the device while consolidating it with a wallet into a single, slim, "pocket-sized" unit. ('904 Patent, col. 4:47-58).
  • Technical Importance: The described invention sought to provide an integrated solution that maintained the portability and usability of modern smartphones while adding the convenience of a wallet. ('904 Patent, col. 2:47-51).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A main housing dimensioned to fit securely around a "personal electronic digital assistant device."
    • A "primary window" on the front side allowing usable access to the device's front surface.
    • A "rear protective face" covering the rear surface of the device.
    • A "planar layer" extended over the rear surface that forms a "holding pocket" with the rear protective face.
    • The pocket's cavity must be "physically separate from the rear surface of the" device.
    • The pocket must be sized to allow insertion and removal of cards or currency.
    • The pocket must include a "finger cut-out portion" to help a user grasp and remove the contents.
    • The "planar layer" of the pocket must have a "smooth texture in contact with the rear surface of the" device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references infringement of "at least one claim." (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are "Louis Vuitton-branded phone cases, including but not limited to the Bumper Pallas and Pro Max Bumper, both of which are available for various iPhone models" (the "‘904 Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific details on the construction, materials, or operation of the accused products beyond identifying them as "phone cases." (Compl. ¶15). It alleges the products are sold through Defendants' website and other distribution channels in the United States. (Compl. ¶¶7-8, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a general allegation that the accused products infringe at least Claim 1 but does not include a claim chart or provide a detailed, element-by-element explanation of how the accused products meet the claim limitations. (Compl. ¶17). The infringement theory is therefore limited to the conclusory statement that the accused phone cases "fall within the scope of at least claim 1 of the '904 patent." (Compl. ¶17).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary issue may be whether the complaint’s conclusory allegations of infringement, without specific supporting facts mapping product features to claim elements, meet the plausibility pleading standards established by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
    • Factual Correspondence: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused Louis Vuitton cases actually incorporate every element of Claim 1. The complaint provides no factual basis to assess whether the products contain a "planar layer" forming a pocket, a specific "finger cut-out portion," or the textured layer described in the claim.
    • Claim Scope Contradiction: Claim 1 presents a significant potential point of contention, as it requires the pocket’s cavity to be "physically separate from the rear surface of the" device, while also requiring the pocket’s "planar layer" to be "in contact with the rear surface of the" device. These two limitations appear to be mutually exclusive, which may raise questions of claim indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a planar layer... forming a holding pocket"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central feature of the invention. Its construction will determine what types of wallet-like structures on a phone case are covered by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the pocket being formed by an "extra layer or flap" made of pliable materials like silicone rubber or fabric, suggesting the term is not limited to a specific rigid structure. ('904 Patent, col. 5:44-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires this layer to have a "smooth texture" and be "in contact with the rear surface of the" device. ('904 Patent, col. 10:52-56). This may be argued to narrow the scope to only those pockets formed between the case and the device itself, rather than fully external pockets, and require a specific surface characteristic.

  • The Term: "physically separate from the rear surface of the personal electronic digital assistant device"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is in direct tension with the final "wherein" clause of Claim 1, which requires a part of the pocket to be "in contact with" the same surface. The resolution of this apparent contradiction is critical to both infringement and validity.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for Plaintiff’s Interpretation (Reconciling the Terms): A plaintiff might argue that "physically separate" refers to the pocket's main storage cavity, and that it does not preclude a different part of the pocket's structure (the "planar layer") from touching the device. The specification discloses embodiments where the pocket is entirely external (Fig. 1B) and others where it is formed in a recess against the device's back (Fig. 4), suggesting the claim language attempts to cover multiple configurations.
    • Evidence for Defendant’s Interpretation (Contradiction): A defendant will likely argue that the plain language is irreconcilably contradictory. The claim requires the pocket to be simultaneously separate from and in contact with the device's rear surface, which could render the claim indefinite and therefore invalid.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendants induce "users, retailers and dealers" by "promoting such products online." (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The complaint does not specify which promotional materials or instructions are alleged to encourage infringing acts.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint requests enhanced and treble damages but does not plead a separate count for willful infringement or allege specific facts (such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent) to support a finding of egregious conduct. (Compl. ¶1; Prayer for Relief ¶E).

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

  1. A foundational issue will be one of claim validity: can the apparently contradictory language in Claim 1, which requires a pocket to be both "physically separate from" and "in contact with" the device's rear surface, be reconciled through claim construction, or does it render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112?

  2. A threshold procedural question is one of pleading sufficiency: do the complaint's conclusory allegations of infringement, which lack specific facts detailing how the accused products meet each claim limitation, satisfy the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?

  3. Assuming the case proceeds, a key evidentiary question will be one of factual infringement: does the evidence show that the accused Louis Vuitton cases possess every limitation recited in Claim 1, particularly the specific "finger cut-out portion" and the "planar layer" with a "smooth texture" as claimed?