DCT

3:17-cv-00018

Columbia Sportswear Co v. Cocona Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-00018, D. Or., 01/05/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Oregon because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there and because the parties contractually agreed to resolve disputes in Oregon federal courts.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to active particle-enhanced membranes and that the patent is invalid.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced textiles, specifically waterproof and breathable membranes enhanced with active particles to improve properties like moisture transfer, odor absorption, and anti-static capability.
  • Key Procedural History: This action for declaratory judgment was filed by Columbia in response to infringement assertions made by Cocona in a demand letter and in a separate lawsuit filed by Cocona against Columbia in the District of Colorado. The complaint also alleges breach of a 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,945,287, was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-00190), which resulted in the cancellation of several claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-05-09 '287 Patent Priority Date
2009-12-03 Reciprocal Non-Disclosure Agreement entered by parties
2015-02-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,945,287 Issued
2016-11-02 Cocona files "Colorado Action" against Columbia
2017-01-05 Columbia files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
2017-11-15 Inter Partes Review IPR2018-00190 filed against '287 Patent
2021-10-25 IPR Certificate issues, cancelling claims 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35-37

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

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,945,287, "Active particle-enhanced membrane and methods for making and using the same," Issued February 3, 2015
    • The Invention Explained:
      • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for materials, particularly for apparel, that are both waterproof and breathable ('287 Patent, col. 1:12-47). Conventional waterproof materials like rubber can feel "hot and humid" because they trap moisture vapor, while materials with other desirable properties like anti-static or "stealth" (low infrared signature) capabilities often compromise flexibility and feel ('287 Patent, col. 1:41-47, 50-68).
      • The Patented Solution: The invention is a membrane created by mixing "active particles" (e.g., activated carbon) into a base polymer solution (e.g., polyurethane) ('287 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-28). These particles enhance properties like moisture vapor transport, odor adsorption, and anti-static behavior ('287 Patent, col. 2:23-28). To prevent the particles from being deactivated during the manufacturing process, they may be temporarily protected by a "removable encapsulant" that is later removed, for instance, by washing or heating, to reactivate the particles in the final product ('287 Patent, col. 2:31-41). The process is depicted in the flowchart of Figure 1 ('287 Patent, FIG. 1).
      • Technical Importance: The invention aims to combine multiple high-performance characteristics (waterproofing, breathability, odor control, anti-static) into a single membrane material without the trade-offs inherent in prior art materials ('287 Patent, col. 2:55-68).
    • Key Claims at a Glance:
      The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted against Columbia, referring only to "one or more of the claims" (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative:
      • Independent Claim 1:
        • A water-proof breathable membrane comprising: a substantially liquid-impermeable cured base material solution comprising a first thickness;
        • a plurality of active particles in contact with the base material solution, wherein the particles are capable of improving vapor transmission and comprise a second thickness;
        • the first thickness is at least 2.5 times larger than the second thickness but less than an order of magnitude larger;
        • at least one removable encapsulant to prevent particle deactivation prior to removal;
        • the encapsulant is removable to reactivate the particles; and
        • the membrane has a moisture vapor transmission rate from about 600 g/m²/day to about 11000 g/m²/day.
          The complaint does not reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "any of its products" (Compl. ¶10) and "the Columbia products accused of infringement" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a claim chart. It states that an "actual controversy exists" because Cocona has asserted in a demand letter and in a separate lawsuit that "Columbia infringes the '287 Patent" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to analyze Cocona's infringement theory.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential points of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint does not detail the infringement dispute, analysis of the '287 Patent's independent claim 1 suggests the following terms may be central to the case.

  • The Term: "active particles"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to infringement, as it defines the core technological component alleged to enhance the membrane's properties. The dispute may center on whether the particles in Columbia's products meet the functional and structural requirements of "active particles" as defined by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of examples, including "activated carbon, aluminum oxide (activated alumina), silica gel, soda ash... zinc oxide, zeolites, titanium dioxide, molecular filter type materials, and other suitable materials" ('287 Patent, col. 4:22-27). This list suggests the term is not confined to a single material type.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent defines the particles by their function, stating they are "'active.' That is, the surface of these particles may be active" and have the "capacity to cause chemical reactions at the surface or physical reactions, such as, adsorb or trap substances" ('287 Patent, col. 4:5-9). An argument could be made that a particle is only "active" if it performs these specific adsorptive functions.

  • The Term: "removable encapsulant"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation is critical because it describes the protective coating that prevents particle deactivation during manufacturing. Infringement analysis may depend on whether a substance used in Columbia's manufacturing process functions as a "removable encapsulant" that is later removed to "reactivate" the particles.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad, non-limiting list of suitable substances, including "water-soluble surfactants, surfactants, salts... waxes... photo-reactive materials, degradable materials... mineral spirits, organic solvents, and any other suitable substances" ('287 Patent, col. 6:35-41).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is defined by its two-part function: it must "prevent at least a substantial portion of the plurality of active particles from being deactivated prior to removal" and it must be "removable to reactivate at least a portion of the plurality of active particles" ('287 Patent, col. 13:41-50). A substance that is not later removed, or whose removal does not "reactivate" particles, may fall outside this definition.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Columbia seeks a declaration that it has not "induced infringement of, or contributed to the infringement of any valid, properly construed claim of the '287 Patent" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide facts related to any specific theory of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willfulness. Instead, Columbia seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" based on Cocona's "continued assertion of one or more of the claims of the '287 Patent against Columbia, despite the non-infringement and invalidity of the '287 Patent" (Compl. ¶12).

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

  1. Procedural Posture and Invalidity: Given that this is a declaratory judgment action and a subsequent IPR proceeding has cancelled numerous claims of the '287 Patent, a threshold question is which claims, if any, remain viable for Cocona to assert against Columbia's products.
  2. Definitional Scope: A central technical question will likely be one of definitional scope: does a material used in Columbia's manufacturing process constitute a "removable encapsulant" that is later removed to "reactivate" the "active particles" as required by the patent's claims, or is there a fundamental difference in the manufacturing process and material composition?
  3. Evidentiary Basis: As this case proceeds, a key evidentiary question will be whether the unspecified Columbia products contain the specific combination of a "substantially liquid-impermeable cured base material" and "active particles" that exhibit the claimed thickness ratios and moisture vapor transmission rates. The lack of specificity in the complaint leaves this as a primary open question for discovery.