DCT
1:25-cv-01316
Midwest Products Inc v. Blue Line Crafts LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Midwest Products, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Blue Line Crafts LLC. (Ohio) and Robert D. Hutchinson, Jr. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDonald Hopkins; Ryan Kromholz & Manion, S.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01316, N.D. Ohio, 08/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Blue Line Crafts LLC maintaining its principal place of business within the district and Defendant Robert D. Hutchinson, Jr. residing within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale, use, and promotion of "MaggieFrame" magnetic embroidery hoops, as well as their creation of self-printed hoops, infringes four patents related to magnetic fabric retaining devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns embroidery hoops that use magnetic force, rather than mechanical pressure, to secure fabric, aiming to simplify the hooping process for a wide range of materials.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit and post-filing interactions on social media platforms between Plaintiff's CEO and Defendant Hutchinson. These interactions, which allegedly included Plaintiff identifying the patents-in-suit and Defendants continuing to promote the accused products while questioning Plaintiff's patent rights, form the basis for allegations of willful and induced infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-02-28 | Earliest Priority Date for ’399, ’169, and ’995 Patents |
| 2009-10-27 | U.S. Patent No. 7,607,399 Issues |
| 2010-07-23 | Priority Date for ’606 Patent |
| 2011-04-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,918,169 Issues |
| 2013-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,584,606 Issues |
| 2014-03-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,661,995 Issues |
| 2024-10-04 | Defendants allegedly post on Facebook questioning Plaintiff's patent |
| 2025-05-22 | Defendants allegedly post on Plaintiff's social media page |
| 2025-05-23 | Plaintiff sends formal notice letter identifying infringed patents |
| 2025-05-29 | Plaintiff sends second letter with copies of issued patents |
| 2025-08-11 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,607,399 - "Magnetic Fabric Retaining Device"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of using conventional embroidery hoops on thick or heavy materials, which require significant pressure and precise adjustment, potentially leading to fabric damage ("hoop burn") and improper embroidery. (’399 Patent, col. 1:36-51). Alternative "sticky backing" frames are noted as being expensive and leaving residue on machine needles. (’399 Patent, col. 2:46-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part hooping device where the members are secured by magnetic force, preferably using multiple, individually spaced rare earth magnets, rather than mechanical clamping. (’399 Patent, col. 3:50-58). This allows the device to hold various fabric thicknesses without adjustment. The solution also includes at least one "ridge" on one member to project the fabric toward the machine's needle plate, ensuring it remains taut, and interchangeable mounting arms to fit different embroidery machine models. (’399 Patent, col. 6:5-10, 20-25).
- Technical Importance: The use of spaced magnets for self-alignment and retention simplified the hooping process, reduced the risk of fabric damage, and increased the device's versatility across different fabric types and machine brands. (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, with Claim 1 being the sole independent claim asserted. (Compl. ¶102).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A fabric retaining device with first and second hooping members, each defining an opening.
- One member comprises "a plurality of individual spaced apart magnets."
- The other member comprises a "material to attract the magnets" to retain an article by magnetic attraction.
- "at least one ridge" on an upper member to position the article relative to the machine's needle plate.
- At least one member comprises "at least one mounting arm" for attaching the device to an embroidery machine.
U.S. Patent No. 8,661,995 - "Magnetic Fabric Retaining Device"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’995 Patent, which shares a specification with the ’399 Patent, addresses the same technical challenges of conventional embroidery hoops. (’995 Patent, col. 1:12-2:65).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a device with a "first hoop" that explicitly comprises both a "plurality of individual spaced apart magnets" and a "non-magnetic material" to which the magnets are attached. (’995 Patent, Claim 1). The corresponding "second hoop" comprises a "quantity of metal sufficient" for attraction. A key distinction in the claim is the structural relationship, wherein "only one of the first hoop and second hoop is adapted to be supported directly by the embroidery machine," with the other being held in place solely by magnetic force. (’995 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: The claims of this patent provide a more specific definition of the device's construction, distinguishing the magnet-bearing hoop from the purely metallic hoop and clarifying that only one of the two parts physically connects to the embroidery machine.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 5-11, 16, and 18, with Claim 1 being an independent claim. (Compl. ¶111).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A material retaining device with a first and second hoop.
- The first hoop comprises a "plurality of individual spaced apart magnets" and a "non-magnetic material," with the magnets attached to the non-magnetic material.
- The second hoop comprises a "quantity of metal sufficient" for attraction.
- The second hoop is "separable from the first hoop."
- "only one" of the hoops is "adapted to be supported directly by the embroidery machine," while the other is held by magnetic attraction.
U.S. Patent No. 7,918,169 - "Magnetic Fabric Retaining Device"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for embroidering material. The recited steps include providing a first hooping member with a magnetically attractable material and a second member with at least two magnets; placing material over the first member's opening; placing the second member over the material to retain it "solely by magnetic attraction"; and attaching the combined assembly to an embroidery machine via an interchangeable mounting arm. (’169 Patent, Abstract; Claim 9).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 9. (Compl. ¶120).
- Accused Features: Defendants are accused of direct infringement by performing the claimed method steps when using the Accused Devices and of inducing infringement by encouraging others to use the devices in this manner. (Compl. ¶¶120, 122).
U.S. Patent No. 8,584,606 - "Hoop Retaining Device"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses a mechanism on a "hoop alignment apparatus" (i.e., a hooping station) designed to prevent a magnetic hoop from prematurely "jumping" into place. The invention is a retaining mechanism, comprising a "slidably coupled" member that is biased by a biasing member (e.g., a spring or magnets) to hold a first hooping member in place; the mechanism is configured to release the hoop when a second hooping member is pressed down on it. (’606 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶125).
- Accused Features: The infringement allegation is directed at the "5.1" hooping station" component of the Accused Devices, which allegedly includes a slidable, biased retaining member that performs the claimed function. (Compl. ¶¶93, 125-126).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Sew Tech Maggie Frame (or MaggieFrame) magnetic hoop and associated hooping stations" ("Accused Devices") and "Printed Accused Devices," which are allegedly 3D-printed copies made by Defendants. (Compl. ¶¶23, 86).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Devices are described as material retaining devices for embroidery machines, comprising two hoops that hold fabric taut between them using magnetic force. (Compl. ¶¶25-26). One hoop contains a "plurality of individual spaced apart magnets" and features at least one "mounting arm for attachment to an embroidery machine." (Compl. ¶¶30, 39). The complaint alleges the Accused Devices are "a copy of Midwest's MightyHoops® product," emphasizing their cross-compatibility. (Compl. ¶¶23, 87). A side-by-side photograph in the complaint compares a MaggieFrame hoop with a Midwest Products hoop. (Compl. Fig. 3, ¶24). Defendants are alleged to use these devices for commercial embroidery and actively promote them on social media as a cheaper, "better made" alternative to Plaintiff's products. (Compl. ¶¶60, 65, 91).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’399 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A fabric retaining device for holding an article to be embroidered in an embroidery machine, said device comprising: | The device is used to hold fabric in place for embroidery on an embroidery machine. | ¶103, p. 25 | col. 1:11-14 |
| a first hooping member defining a first opening. | The accused device includes a first hooping member with an opening. | ¶103, p. 25 | col. 6:11-12 |
| a second hooping member defining a second opening. | The accused device includes a second hooping member with an opening. | ¶103, p. 26 | col. 6:23-25 |
| Wherein one of said first and said second hooping members comprises a plurality of individual spaced apart magnets. | The first hooping member of the accused device contains multiple, separate magnets. An annotated diagram shows the alleged magnet locations. | ¶¶31, 103, p. 26 | col. 6:13-17 |
| Wherein the other of said first and said second hooping members comprises a material to attract the magnets... | The second hooping member allegedly contains magnetic material that is attracted to the magnets in the first hooping member. | ¶¶50, 103, p. 26 | col. 6:27-34 |
| at least one ridge formed on the upper member of said first and said second hooping members, whereby said at least one ridge positions said article to be embroidered relative to a needle plate on said embroidery machine | The complaint alleges the device has a ridge that positions the fabric relative to the needle plate during operation. An annotated diagram labels a "Ridge" on the device. | ¶¶37-38, 103, p. 27 | col. 6:5-10 |
| wherein at least one of said first and said second hooping members comprises at least one mounting arm for attaching said device to the embroidery machine. | The first hooping member includes mounting arms to attach to an embroidery machine. | ¶¶39, 103, p. 27 | col. 6:20-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "at least one ridge... [that] positions said article." The analysis may focus on whether any raised feature on the accused product's surface performs the specific positioning function recited in the claim, or if it is merely an incidental structural element.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's second hoop "comprises a material to attract the magnets"? The complaint's diagram for this element points to the second hoop generally, suggesting it is made of a ferromagnetic material, which will be a question of fact. (Compl. ¶103, p. 26).
’995 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A material retaining device for an item to be embroidered by an embroidery machine... | The accused device is used to retain fabric for embroidery. | ¶112, p. 29 | col. 1:15-18 |
| a first hoop... comprises a plurality of individual spaced apart magnets and a non-magnetic material, the plurality of individual spaced apart magnets attached to the non-magnetic material; | The first hoop allegedly consists of individual magnets attached to a non-magnetic material, identified as the green plastic frame. | ¶¶30, 35-36, 112, p. 30 | col. 5:50-54 |
| a second hoop... comprises a quantity of metal sufficient for the first hoop to be attracted to the second hoop, | The second hoop allegedly contains sufficient metal components to be attracted to the magnets in the first hoop. | ¶¶50, 112, p. 30 | col. 6:30-33 |
| wherein magnetic attraction between the first hoop and the second hoop enables the material to be held in place... | Magnetic attraction between the two hoops holds the fabric in place for embroidery. | ¶¶51, 112, p. 30 | col. 3:53-58 |
| wherein the second hoop is separable from the first hoop at least when the second hoop is magnetically disengaged from the first hoop, | The two hoops are physically separate components that can be disengaged. A diagram shows the two hoops apart. | ¶¶52, 112, p. 31 | col. 8:31-35 |
| wherein only one of the first hoop and second hoop is adapted to be supported directly by the embroidery machine, and the other... is held substantially stationary by the magnetic attraction. | Only one hoop has mounting arms for the machine; the other is held in place relative to the first hoop solely by magnetism during use. | ¶¶53-56, 112, p. 31 | col. 6:19-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the phrase "non-magnetic material" carry a specific technical meaning beyond simply not being ferromagnetic? The dispute could explore whether the material must have other properties described in the specification.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the second hoop is comprised of "metal," as claimed, or if it also contains magnets, which could alter the infringement analysis. The complaint's allegations for the ’399 patent suggest one hoop has magnets and the other has attractable material, but the allegations for the ’995 patent are more specific. (Compl. ¶¶103, 112). The complaint elsewhere alleges the second hoop also has magnets. (Compl. ¶47).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’399 Patent:
- The Term: "at least one ridge"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it adds a functional element beyond simple magnetic clamping. The claim requires the ridge to perform the action of "position[ing] said article... relative to a needle plate." The presence and function of such a structure on the Accused Device will be a key factual and legal question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "ridge," which could be argued to cover any raised profile on the hoop's surface that helps control the fabric's position.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the ridge "is designed to project the material to be embroidered 35, through and past lower clamping member 22, so that it comes into contact with the needle plate 36." (’399 Patent, col. 6:5-10). This language suggests a specific purpose and geometry, which could support a narrower construction requiring the ridge to actively push the fabric through the opposing hoop's opening.
For the ’995 Patent:
- The Term: "non-magnetic material"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the construction of the magnet-bearing hoop. Practitioners may focus on this term because its inclusion distinguishes this claim from a device where magnets might be embedded directly into a metal frame. The infringement analysis depends on the accused product having magnets attached to such a material.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term's plain meaning suggests any material that is not magnetic, which would broadly cover plastics, polymers, wood, or other common frame materials.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not appear to explicitly define "non-magnetic material." However, figures and descriptions imply a frame or body that provides structure for the magnets. (e.g., ’995 Patent, col. 5:50-54, describing body 112). A defendant might argue the term implies a material that is also non-metallic to contrast with the "quantity of metal" in the second hoop, though the claim does not explicitly state this.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by asserting that Defendants actively encouraged consumers on social media to purchase and use the Accused Devices. (Compl. ¶108). Specific allegations include Defendants posting links to websites selling the products in response to user inquiries and promoting them as cross-compatible with Plaintiff's own products. (Compl. ¶¶81, 82, 98).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents prior to and during the infringing conduct. The basis for this allegation includes direct social media conversations where Plaintiff's CEO offered to send and explain the patents to Defendant Hutchinson, a formal notice letter sent by Plaintiff that expressly identified the patent numbers, and Defendants' alleged continuation and escalation of infringing activities after the lawsuit was filed. (Compl. ¶¶58, 64, 77, 96-99).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of factual correspondence: Does the physical construction of the Accused Devices, particularly the "MaggieFrame" hoop and hooping station, meet every specific limitation recited in the asserted claims? This will likely focus on elements such as the "ridge" of the ’399 patent and the "slidably coupled... biasing member" of the ’606 patent.
A second core issue concerns intent and willfulness: The complaint provides extensive documentation of alleged communications and public statements by the Defendants. The case may turn on whether this evidence is sufficient to establish that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and either proceeded with objective recklessness or actively intended to induce infringement by others, thereby supporting claims for enhanced damages.
A final question relates to claim scope consistency: The complaint alleges that in the accused products, both the first hoop and the second hoop contain a "plurality of individual spaced apart magnets" (Compl. ¶¶30, 47). This raises the question of how this alleged construction maps onto the asserted claims, some of which recite one hoop with magnets and an opposing hoop with "a material to attract the magnets" (’399 Claim 1) or a "quantity of metal" (’995 Claim 1), potentially creating a point of contention over claim interpretation and infringement.