DCT
2:12-cv-02276
Gallik v. Lusko
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gerald R. Gallik and Robert G. Gallik, Jr. (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Kurt Lusko (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:12-cv-02276, W.D. Tenn., 04/10/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant’s alleged sale of infringing products and transaction of business within the state of Tennessee, including delivery of products to residents of Shelby County.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s head apparel embroidery hoops infringe a patent related to a device for properly aligning and holding headwear, such as baseball caps, in an embroidery machine.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns accessories for automated embroidery machines, which are designed to hold fabric items taut and in a precise position for computerized stitching.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiffs state they market and sell products covered by the patent-in-suit under the name "Hoop-N-Buddyz." The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-06-25 | '934 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-08-17 | '934 Patent Issued |
| 2012-04-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,775,934, “Head Apparel Embroidery Hoop and Alignment Device,” issued August 17, 2004.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional embroidery devices where a hat is not held in proper alignment within the embroidery frame, particularly with respect to the rear of the hat. This misalignment could cause an embroidered design to be offset on the final product (’934 Patent, col. 2:14-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a device comprising a main frame and a removable retaining plate that clamps the bill of a hat. A key feature is a "centered rear alignment groove" on the main frame, which is designed to engage the center seam at the back of the hat, ensuring it is properly centered and aligned for embroidery (’934 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:33-37). This system is intended to align both the front and rear of the hat simultaneously.
- Technical Importance: The device was designed to offer an economical and more efficient method for achieving precise alignment of caps in embroidery machines, a persistent challenge in the field (’934 Patent, col. 2:62-65).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, but Claim 1 is a representative independent claim.
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A substantially flat, planar frame with an opening for a cap, an outer perimeter for securing to an embroidery machine's containment hoop, and a "centered rear alignment groove" on its upper surface.
- A retaining plate that is "removably clamped" to the frame.
- The combination allows a cap to be secured by the plate and aligned by the groove for presentation to an embroidery machine.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are identified as "head apparel embroidery hoops" or "hat hoops," including products sold and described as "Cap Hat Hoop" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges these are sold on the internet through "e-bay" under seller names including "5026kurt" (Compl. ¶10).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused products are used with embroidery machines from various manufacturers (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not provide further technical detail about the design or operation of the accused products beyond the general allegation that they are infringing hat hoops.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of the '934 patent but does not provide a claim chart or map specific product features to claim limitations. The following summary is based on the general allegations.
'934 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A substantially flat, planar frame having an upper surface and a lower surface, a front and a rear, an inner perimeter defining an opening adapted for receiving a cap to be embroidered, an outer perimeter adapted for being secured to a containment hoop of the embroidery machine… | The complaint alleges the Defendant sells "hat hoops," which are frames for holding head apparel during embroidery (Compl. ¶10). | ¶10, ¶16 | col. 4:32-41 |
| …and a centered rear alignment groove defined in the upper surface at the rear of the frame; | The complaint alleges the accused products infringe the '934 patent, which would require the presence of this feature, but provides no specific factual allegations regarding such a groove. | ¶10, ¶16 | col. 4:41-43 |
| and a retaining plate having an upper and lower surface, said retaining plate removably clamped to the frame; | The complaint’s general infringement allegation suggests the accused "hat hoops" possess a structure corresponding to the claimed retaining plate (Compl. ¶16). | ¶10, ¶16 | col. 4:44-46 |
| whereby a cap secured within the frame by said retaining plate and maintained in proper alignment with the rear alignment groove is positioned within the containment hoop of an embroidery machine in order to present an area to be embroidered to an embroidery machine. | This is a functional result of the claimed structure. Infringement of this clause would follow from a finding of infringement of the preceding structural elements (Compl. ¶16). | ¶16 | col. 4:47-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The primary question is factual: do the accused "Cap Hat Hoop" products incorporate each element of Claim 1? The complaint lacks specific factual allegations or visual evidence to show that the accused products contain a "centered rear alignment groove" or a "retaining plate" that functions as claimed. The case may depend on evidence gathered during discovery that demonstrates the structure of the accused device.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "centered rear alignment groove"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to be a central feature of the invention, intended to distinguish it from prior art by providing a specific mechanism for aligning the rear of a cap. The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on whether the accused product has a structure that falls within the court's construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term does not require a specific shape or size, and that any indentation, marking, or feature on the rear of the frame that serves to center a cap's seam could be considered an "alignment groove." The claim language itself is functional, describing a "groove" for "alignment."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes this feature as a "V-groove 114" and shows it in the figures as a distinct, V-shaped notch cut into the rear of the frame (’934 Patent, col. 4:12-16; FIG. 1). A party could argue that the term should be limited to a physical channel or notch similar to the one disclosed in the preferred embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement and focuses its allegations on direct infringement through making, using, and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶10, ¶16).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant had notice of the '934 Patent and allegedly "copied verbatim much of the language from the product instruction sheets" that are included with Plaintiffs' own commercial product (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be evidentiary and factual: does the accused "Cap Hat Hoop" product, as sold by the Defendant, actually contain the structures recited in the '934 patent's claims? The resolution of the case will depend on evidence, not yet presented in the complaint, that details the specific design and operation of the accused device.
- The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: how broadly will the court define the term "centered rear alignment groove"? A narrow construction limiting the term to a physical notch like the one shown in the patent's figures would create a higher bar for the Plaintiff to prove infringement than a broader construction covering any feature that facilitates rear alignment.