DCT
1:24-cv-00274
Lysse Partners LLC v. CAVERN Club LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lyssé Partners LLC (Indiana)
- Defendant: Cavern Club, LLC (d/b/a Liverpool Jeans, Liverpool Division of Cavern Club) (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00274, S.D.N.Y., 03/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a “regular and established place of business” in the form of a wholesale showroom in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “Reese” line of women’s lower body garments infringes three patents related to an integrated, hidden control waistband that provides body-shaping benefits.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the apparel industry, specifically addressing the market for garments that combine the aesthetic of conventional clothing with the functional benefits of shaping underwear.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff against the same Defendant on October 18, 2019, asserting two of the same patents-in-suit (’139 and ’034 Patents). That action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on April 10, 2020. The current complaint also alleges Defendant had notice of the alleged infringement as early as June 2019 and received further notice in December 2023, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-03 | Priority Date for ’139, ’034, and ’060 Patents |
| 2018-05-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,968,139 Issues |
| 2018-06-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,993,034 Issues |
| 2019-06-XX | Plaintiff allegedly first informed Defendant of infringement |
| Post 2019-06 | Defendant allegedly introduced "Second Liverpool Products" |
| 2019-10-18 | Plaintiff filed previous lawsuit against Defendant |
| 2020-04-10 | Previous lawsuit voluntarily dismissed without prejudice |
| 2023-10-10 | U.S. Patent No. 11,779,060 Issues |
| 2023-12-XX | Plaintiff allegedly informed Defendant of infringement of all three patents |
| 2024-03-26 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,968,139 - "Hidden Control Waistband Garment"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a single garment that provides the body-shaping benefits of undergarments like girdles while maintaining the outward appearance of a conventional garment, such as leggings or a skirt (’139 Patent, col. 1:21-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lower body garment with an outer layer and an internal "control panel" that is concealed from view (’139 Patent, col. 3:39-44). This control panel, which can be a double layer of fabric, lines the full circumference of the interior waist and is anchored at the top edge seam of the garment to provide shaping without being externally visible (’139 Patent, col. 8:31-42; FIG. 1C).
- Technical Importance: This approach integrates shaping functionality directly into apparel, aiming to eliminate the need for separate shapewear and improve wearer comfort and convenience (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A lower body garment that provides shaping benefits
- Comprising an outer garment and a control panel with a rectangular shape
- Wherein the control panel lines a full circumference of an interior waist
- The control panel is anchored to the outer garment at a top edge seam
- The control panel is not visible from the outside
- The control panel is a double layer fabric, with the bottom edge of the fabric bound together
U.S. Patent No. 9,993,034 - "Hidden Control Waistband Garment"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '139 Patent, this patent addresses the need to combine fashion apparel with integrated, invisible body-shaping technology (’034 Patent, col. 1:21-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lower body garment with a hidden internal control panel anchored at the top. A key feature is that the control panel "extends downwardly and hangs freely from the top most seam," suggesting its bottom edge is not attached to the outer garment (’034 Patent, col. 4:10-14; col. 8:56-57). The claim also specifies that an inner surface of the control panel is configured to lie against the wearer's skin (’034 Patent, col. 8:58-60).
- Technical Importance: This patent family provides different claim scopes for constructing garments with integrated shaping panels, focusing here on a "free hanging" panel design.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶¶41-42).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A lower body garment providing shaping benefits
- Comprising an outer garment and a rectangular control panel, each having a top most edge seam
- The control panel lines a full circumference of the interior waist
- The control panel is anchored to the outer garment at the top most edge seam
- The control panel extends downwardly and hangs freely from the top most seam
- The control panel is not visible from the outside
- An inner surface of the control panel is configured to lie against the skin of a wearer
U.S. Patent No. 11,779,060 - "Hidden Control Waistband Garment"
Technology Synopsis
This patent, part of the same family, also discloses a lower body garment with a hidden internal control panel designed for body shaping (’060 Patent, Abstract). The technical solution is substantially similar to that of the ’034 Patent, focusing on a control panel that is anchored at the top edge seam of the garment and "hangs freely" with an inner surface designed to lie against the skin (’060 Patent, col. 8:35-42).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶¶55-56).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the hidden "tummy control" panel in Defendant's "Reese" line of leggings and skirts infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶54, 59).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "Reese" line of lower body apparel, including leggings and skirts (Compl. ¶4). The complaint distinguishes between "First Liverpool Products" and "Second Liverpool Products," the latter allegedly introduced after Defendant was notified of infringement in June 2019 (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are marketed as having "tummy control tech" and a "slimming tummy control panel" to provide body-shaping benefits (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges these products incorporate an internal control panel that is anchored at the top waist seam and is not visible from the outside (Compl. ¶¶32, 45). Image 1 from the complaint shows the inside front view of an accused legging, with labels indicating the control panel ('A'), the top edge seam ('B'), and the bottom edge of the panel ('C') (Compl. Image 1, p. 9). The complaint alleges these products compete directly with Plaintiff's products featuring its patented technology (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,968,139 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A lower body garment that provides shaping benefits | The Accused Liverpool Products are lower body garments (e.g., leggings and skirts) that provide shaping benefits including “tummy control” | ¶32 | col. 1:21-24 |
| comprising: an outer garment; | The accused products are comprised of an outer garment. | ¶32 | col. 3:41-42 |
| and a control panel having a rectangular shape; | The control panels of the Accused Liverpool Products have an essentially rectangular shape. | ¶32 | col. 3:45-48 |
| wherein the control panel lines a full circumference of an interior waist... | The control panel...lines the full circumference of interior waist of the outer garment. | ¶32 | col. 3:48-50 |
| the control panel is anchored to the outer garment at a top edge seam... | The panel is anchored to the outer garment at the top edge seam. Image 5 shows a close-up of this alleged top edge seam attachment. | ¶32; Image 5, p.10 | col. 3:50-52 |
| and the control panel is not visible from an outside of the outer garment, | The control panel is not visible from the outside of the outer garment. | ¶32 | col. 3:42-44 |
| and wherein the control panel is a double layer fabric, the bottom edge...is bound together. | The control panels...consist of a double layer of fabric that is bound together with a seam at its bottom edge. | ¶33 | col. 4:12-17 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "rectangular shape." The complaint alleges an "essentially rectangular shape" (Compl. ¶32), while photographs in the complaint appear to show a panel with curved upper and lower edges (Compl. Images 1-4, p. 9). The case may turn on whether this shape falls within the scope of the claim term as construed by the court.
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts the accused control panel is a "double layer fabric" with its bottom edge "bound together" (Compl. ¶33). The factual basis for this allegation, including the specific construction of the accused products' panels and seams, will likely be a key area of discovery and expert analysis.
U.S. Patent No. 9,993,034 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A lower body garment that provides shaping benefits | The Accused Liverpool Products provide shaping benefits including "tummy control". | ¶45 | col. 1:21-24 |
| comprising: an outer garment having a top most edge seam; and a control panel having a rectangular shape... | The accused products include an outer garment and a control panel with an "essentially rectangular shape". | ¶45 | col. 3:45-48 |
| wherein the control panel lines a full circumference of an interior waist... | The control panel lines the full circumference of the interior waist of the outer garment. | ¶45 | col. 3:48-50 |
| the control panel is anchored to the outer garment at the top most edge seam... | The panel is anchored to the outer garment at the top most edge seam. | ¶45 | col. 3:50-52 |
| the control panel extends downwardly and hangs freely from the top most seam, | The control panel "extends downwardly and hangs freely from the top most seam." | ¶45 | col. 4:10-14 |
| and the control panel is not visible from an outside of the outer garment, | As illustrated by complaint images, the control panel is not visible from the outside. | ¶46 | col. 4:14-15 |
| wherein an inner surface of the control panel configured to lie against the skin of a wearer. | The complaint alleges the inner surface of the control panel will lie against the skin of a wearer when worn. | ¶47 | col. 8:58-60 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the interpretation of "hangs freely from the top most seam." The complaint alleges the accused products meet this limitation for claim 1 (Compl. ¶45), but also alleges they meet dependent claim 2, which requires the panel be "further anchored to the outer garment along one or more vertical seams" (Compl. ¶¶42, 45). Image 9 shows a side view of an accused legging, with an oval highlighting what is alleged to be such a vertical seam (Compl. Image 9, p. 15). This raises the question of whether a panel can "hang freely" if it is also anchored along its sides.
- Technical Questions: The evidence required to prove that the panel's inner surface is "configured to lie against the skin of a wearer" may be contested. This could involve questions of whether the material or construction is specifically designed for that purpose, beyond the characteristics of a generic lining fabric.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rectangular shape" (’139 Patent, Claim 1; ’034 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because photographs of the accused product in the complaint depict a control panel with visibly curved top and bottom edges (Compl. Images 1-4, p. 9). Defendant may argue this curved shape is not "rectangular." The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the term is construed broadly enough to cover shapes that are not strictly geometric rectangles.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the panel as having a "horizontal rectangular shape that lines the outer garment at both front and back" (’139 Patent, col. 3:45-48). The qualifier "horizontal" could suggest that the overall orientation and function, rather than strict geometric fidelity, is what is meant.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 1C in both patents, show a component (112) with curved top and bottom boundaries. A party could argue that if the inventor intended to claim this specific curved shape, they would not have used the plain geometric term "rectangular."
The Term: "hangs freely from the top most seam" (’034 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning is pivotal to infringement of claim 1 and its relationship with dependent claim 2. Plaintiff accuses the same product of infringing both claim 1 (requiring the panel to "hang freely") and claim 2 (requiring the panel to be "further anchored" at vertical seams) (Compl. ¶¶41, 42, 45).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification clarifies that a "floating" bottom edge means it is "not anchored to the outer garment... and therefore not observable from the exterior" (’034 Patent, col. 4:10-15). This suggests "hangs freely" may primarily refer to the unattached nature of the bottom edge, potentially allowing for side attachments.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "hangs freely" implies attachment only at the top seam, precluding any other anchoring points. Under this interpretation, a product with vertical seam anchors (as required by claim 2) could not simultaneously "hang freely" as required by claim 1, creating a potential contradiction in the infringement theory.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement for all three patents, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by "importing, marketing, selling, and offering to sell the Accused Liverpool Products" (Compl. ¶¶35, 49, 63).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents-in-suit. The complaint bases this on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents and infringement since at least June 2019, stemming from direct correspondence and a prior lawsuit filed in October 2019 (Compl. ¶¶20-21, 37, 51). The complaint further alleges that despite this history, Defendant continued its infringing conduct and even received another notice in December 2023 regarding all three patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶24, 26, 65).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "rectangular shape," a precise geometric term, be construed to cover the accused control panel, which appears in complaint photographs to have distinctly curved top and bottom edges?
- A critical question of claim interpretation will be whether a control panel that "hangs freely" as required by independent claim 1 of the '034 and '060 Patents can simultaneously be "further anchored" along vertical seams as required by dependent claim 2, an issue central to the coherence of Plaintiff's infringement theory.
- The case will likely feature a significant focus on the evidentiary basis for willfulness: given the detailed history of prior notice and litigation alleged in the complaint, the court will examine what steps, if any, Defendant took to assess infringement after being notified, and whether its continued sales constituted objectively reckless conduct.