DCT
2:23-cv-00193
Athalonz LLC v. Under Armour Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Athalonz, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Under Armour, Inc. (Maryland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
- Case Identification: Athalonz, LLC v. Under Armour, Inc., 2:23-cv-00193, E.D. Tex., 04/26/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant offers for sale and sells the accused products within the district, including at an Under Armour Factory House in Allen, Texas, which is alleged to be a regular and established place of business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s athletic footwear infringes four patents related to shoe sole geometry and material composition designed to improve an athlete's stance and performance.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves designing athletic shoe soles with specific three-dimensional slopes and differential material compressibility to biomechanically encourage an optimal athletic stance, thereby improving force transfer and stability.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the underlying patented technology since at least 2013 through knowledge of a parent patent application, and aware of the specific patents-in-suit since at least January 2022, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations. All four asserted patents claim priority to the same 2011 provisional application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-03-08 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents |
| 2020-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,674,786 Issued |
| 2021-05-01 | Accused Product "HOVR Forge RC Spikeless" Launch (approx.) |
| 2021-05-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,013,291 Issued |
| 2021-07-20 | U.S. Patent No. 11,064,760 Issued |
| 2022-04-01 | Accused Product "HOVR Drive 2" Launch (approx.) |
| 2022-06-01 | Accused Product "Curry HOVR Splash" Launch (approx.) |
| 2022-07-01 | Accused Product "Curry 4 FloTro" Launch (approx.) |
| 2022-08-01 | Accused Product "Harper 7 Low Elite" Launch (approx.) |
| 2022-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 11,510,456 Issued |
| 2023-04-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,674,786 - "Athletic positioning apparatus including a heel platform and applications thereof"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,674,786, "Athletic positioning apparatus including a heel platform and applications thereof," issued June 9, 2020 (Compl. ¶26).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty athletes face in consistently maintaining an optimal athletic stance, which is often biomechanically unnatural but critical for maximizing power, efficiently transferring force from the ground, and reducing injury risk (Compl. ¶13).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus, such as a shoe insole or sole, featuring a specific three-dimensional geometry. It comprises a heel platform of uniform height that establishes a "reference slope," and an "angled support platform" for the mid-foot and toe. This angled platform is defined by three distinct slopes—along the inner edge, front edge, and outer edge—that are each greater than the reference slope, causing the toe section to be lower than the heel and naturally shifting an athlete's weight into a more effective stance (’786 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-12; Compl. ¶46).
- Technical Importance: The technology addressed a perceived gap in the field by using specific sole geometry to directly manipulate ground-body force interaction, thereby creating a more stable athletic base for increased power generation (Compl. ¶24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('786 Patent, col. 42:61-43:15; Compl. ¶46).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- An athletic positioning apparatus comprising a heel platform section, a mid-foot section, and a toe section.
- The heel platform has a uniform height from its front to rear edge, establishing a "reference slope" that is "substantially parallel" to the bottom surface of the apparatus.
- The mid-foot and toe sections form an "angled support platform" defined by a first slope (inner edge), a second slope (front edge), and a third slope (outer edge).
- Each of these three slopes is greater than the reference slope.
- As a result, the toe section is lower than the heel platform section.
U.S. Patent No. 11,013,291 - "Athletic positioning apparatus and applications thereof"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,013,291, "Athletic positioning apparatus and applications thereof," issued May 25, 2021 (Compl. ¶27).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '786 patent, this invention seeks to correct sub-optimal athletic positioning that leads to inefficient force transfer and diminished performance (Compl. ¶13).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims an entire shoe (upper, midsole, insole, and outsole) whose components collectively form an "athletic positioning shape." This shape is not defined by continuous slopes, but rather by the relationship between three specific heights: a "first height" at the heel, a "second height" at the outer toe section, and a "third height" at the inner toe section. The claimed geometric relationship requires the heel to be highest, the outer toe to be intermediate, and the inner toe to be lowest (first > second > third), which creates a unique three-dimensional orientation for the foot (’291 Patent, Abstract; col. 43:12-30; Compl. ¶53).
- Technical Importance: This approach translates the biomechanical principles of the patent family into a constructible and measurable definition for an entire shoe, based on discrete height relationships at key anatomical points (Compl. ¶53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’291 Patent, col. 43:12-36; Compl. ¶53).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A shoe comprising an upper, midsole, insole, and outsole.
- The midsole, insole, and outsole together form an "athletic positioning shape."
- This shape has a "first height" along the heel section.
- This shape has a "second height" on the outside edge of the toe section.
- This shape has a "third height" on the inside edge of the toe section.
- The heights must satisfy the relationship: first height > second height > third height.
- The claim further recites that slopes are formed between these respective height points.
U.S. Patent No. 11,064,760 - "Adjustable athletic positioning apparatus and applications thereof"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,064,760, "Adjustable athletic positioning apparatus and applications thereof," issued July 20, 2021 (Compl. ¶28).
- Technology Synopsis: The ’760 patent is directed to a pair of shoes where the sole positions the big toe area at a lower position than both the heel area and the outer small toe area. The technology is further characterized by a heel area with "substantially no slope" between its inner and outer edges and a bottom sole surface that is "substantially linear" at a cross-section of the ball of the foot (Compl. ¶65).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused shoes feature soles that position the big toe area lower than the heel and outer small toe areas, supported by specific height measurements, and further have a heel with substantially no medial-to-lateral slope (Compl. ¶¶67-68).
U.S. Patent No. 11,510,456 - "Athletic positioning apparatus and applications thereof"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,510,456, "Athletic positioning apparatus and applications thereof," issued November 29, 2022 (Compl. ¶29).
- Technology Synopsis: The ’456 patent describes an athletic shoe that achieves athletic positioning through material properties rather than solely geometry. The claimed sole has a forefoot platform constructed from a material that, when worn by an athlete, compresses to a greater degree near the inner edge of the sole than it does near the outer edge (Compl. ¶73).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 10 (Compl. ¶73).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the forefoot platform of the accused HOVR Forge RC Spikeless shoe is made of materials with different compressibility, as evidenced by differing durometer readings showing a softer, more compressible material at the inner edge (reading of 24) and a firmer, less compressible material at the outer edge (reading of 43) (Compl. ¶¶77-78). Figure 29 in the complaint shows a cross-section of the accused shoe's toe portion with labels indicating durometer readings for the "first material" and "second material" (Compl. ¶78).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are various models of Under Armour athletic footwear, including the HOVR Forge RC Spikeless Golf Shoe, Unisex Curry HOVR Splash Basketball Shoe, Unisex Curry 4 FloTro Basketball Shoe, Harper 7 Low Elite TPU Baseball Cleat, and the HOVR Drive 2 Spiked Golf Shoe (Compl. ¶35).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies these products as athletic shoes marketed for sports including golf, basketball, and baseball (Compl. ¶35). Plaintiff alleges these products are marketed with claims of providing "better stability and more efficient transfer of force," "responsive" cushioning that "returns energy," and a "stable base" (Compl. ¶¶37, 38, 40, 41). The complaint alleges that the soles of these shoes possess the specific geometric and material properties claimed in the patents-in-suit, such as specific slopes, height relationships between the heel and toe, and gradients of compressible material in the forefoot (Compl. ¶42).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,674,786 - Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an athletic positioning apparatus comprises: a heel platform section...a mid-foot section...and a toe section... | The Under Armour Curry 4 FloTro is alleged to have these three distinct sections, as shown in a medial view. Figure 14 in the complaint provides a side-view photograph of the shoe with these sections identified (Compl. ¶47). | ¶47 | col. 9:22-25 |
| the heel platform section has a uniform height from an outer edge to an inner edge...which establishes a reference slope that is substantially parallel to a bottom surface of the apparatus | The Curry 4 FloTro allegedly has a heel platform with a uniform height across its width. Figure 15 provides a posterior cross-section of the heel to support this allegation (Compl. ¶48). | ¶48 | col. 42:64-43:3 |
| the mid-foot section and the toe section form an angled support platform that has a first slope along the inner edge...a second slope along the front edge...and a third slope along the outer edge... | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the Curry 4 FloTro's midfoot and toe sections form a platform with these three distinct slopes. | ¶49 | col. 43:3-9 |
| wherein the first slope, the second slope, and the third slope each greater than the reference slope | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the three slopes of the angled support platform are greater than the reference slope of the heel. | ¶50 | col. 43:9-11 |
| wherein the toe section is lower than the heel platform section as a result of the first, second, and third slopes | The complaint alleges the toe section of the Curry 4 FloTro has a height of 22.2-24.1mm, which is lower than the heel platform height of 29.56-29.68mm. | ¶50 | col. 43:12-15 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "substantially parallel" will be a central issue. The defense may argue that the accused product's heel has a degree of curvature or angle that falls outside a reasonable construction of this term. The complaint's visual evidence shows general flatness but lacks quantitative data on parallelism (Compl. Fig. 15).
- Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the accused soles, which may have complex, continuous curvatures, can be fairly characterized as having the distinct "first slope," "second slope," and "third slope" required by the claim. The complaint alleges these exist but does not provide topographical or geometric evidence to delineate them.
U.S. Patent No. 11,013,291 - Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A shoe comprises: an upper section; a midsole...; an insole...; and a bottom outsole... | The Curry HOVR Splash shoe is alleged to have these components. Figure 16 in the complaint shows a partially disassembled shoe to identify these parts (Compl. ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 43:13-17 |
| wherein the midsole, the insole, and the bottom outsole form an athletic positioning shape, wherein the athletic positioning shape has: a first height at an inside edge and at an outside edge of the shoe along a heel section... | The Curry HOVR Splash allegedly has a heel section with a "first height" of approximately 26mm. This is depicted in a cross-sectional view of the heel (Compl. ¶55, 57). | ¶55, ¶57 | col. 43:18-24 |
| a second height on the outside edge of the shoe at a toe section of the shoe | The Curry HOVR Splash allegedly has an outer toe section with a "second height" of approximately 15mm. This is depicted in a cross-sectional view of the toe (Compl. ¶56, 57). | ¶56, ¶57 | col. 43:24-26 |
| and a third height on the inside edge of the shoe at the toe section of the shoe | The Curry HOVR Splash allegedly has an inner toe section with a "third height" of approximately 12.5mm. This is depicted in a cross-sectional view of the toe (Compl. ¶56, 57). | ¶56, ¶57 | col. 43:27-29 |
| and wherein the first height being greater than the second height, and the second height being greater than the third height | The complaint alleges this relationship is met based on the approximate measurements: 26mm > 15mm > 12.5mm. Figure 19 provides a schematic diagram illustrating this relationship (Compl. ¶57). | ¶57 | col. 43:29-32 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim requires that the "midsole, the insole, and the bottom outsole" collectively form the shape. The defense may question whether a conventional, flat insole, as depicted in the complaint (Compl. Fig. 16, "insole not shown (shoe includes a flat conventional insole)"), meaningfully contributes to the claimed shape, or if the shape resides solely in the midsole.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation relies on "approximate" measurements taken from product samples. The validity of these measurements, the locations at which they were taken, and the impact of manufacturing tolerances will likely be areas of factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "substantially parallel" (’786 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the baseline "reference slope" of the heel platform, against which the other claimed slopes are functionally compared. A broad definition would accommodate more variation in heel shape, while a narrow one would require a nearly flat heel. The validity of the infringement allegation hinges on the accused heel meeting this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "substantially" to mean that "the items are configured to be within at least 50 percent of its corresponding term and/or relativity between items" and that such variations "would not significantly alter the function or result" (’786 Patent, col. 40:40-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in the patent, such as the block diagram in Fig. 5, depict the heel platform (21) with perfectly straight, parallel lines, suggesting that the intended embodiment is geometrically flat. The term "uniform height" also suggests a lack of variation.
Term: "athletic positioning shape" (’291 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the '291 patent's infringement theory. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is fully defined by the height relationships recited in the claim itself, or if it implicitly requires the achievement of a particular biomechanical effect on the wearer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim body itself appears to define the "athletic positioning shape" by its subsequent limitations, namely the three specific heights and their relationship (first > second > third). Plaintiff may argue that any shoe meeting these structural criteria inherently possesses the claimed "shape." (’291 Patent, col. 43:18-32).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that wearing the apparatus "places the person in an athletic position (e.g., knees slightly bent, weight more on the inside of the legs than the outside of the legs...)" (’291 Patent, col. 9:22-26). A defendant may argue that to be an "athletic positioning shape," the accused product must be proven to cause this specific physiological result, not just meet a set of static measurements.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and the underlying technology. It specifically alleges that certain of Defendant's senior employees were aware of the parent application to the asserted patent family as early as 2013 and were aware of the asserted patents themselves since at least January 2022, prior to the launch of several accused products (Compl. ¶¶32, 33). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant developed and sold the accused products despite this knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can relative terms like "substantially parallel" in the ’786 patent and "athletic positioning shape" in the ’291 patent be proven by the complaint's photographic evidence and approximate measurements, or will their construction require a more rigorous, quantitative, or functional showing that the accused products do not meet?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the complex, continuous curvature of a modern athletic shoe sole contain the discrete geometric elements—such as the distinct "first, second, and third slopes" of the '786 patent—or will this mapping be shown to be a legal fiction unsupported by the physical reality of the accused products?
- The dispute over the ’456 patent may turn on a question of in-use functionality vs. material properties: is evidence of differing durometer readings (a static material property) sufficient to prove the claim limitation that one material "compresses" more than another "when an athlete wears the athletic shoe" (a dynamic, in-use condition)?