DCT
2:25-cv-00744
Handsfree Labs Licensing LLC v. Skechers USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: HandsFree Labs Licensing, LLC; Fast IP, LLC; and Kizik Design, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00744, E.D. Tex., 07/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Skechers has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing the operation of retail stores in Sherman, Texarkana, Tyler, and Beaumont.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hands Free Slip-ins footwear infringes multiple utility and design patents related to rapid-entry shoe technology.
- Technical Context: The technology enables hands-free shoe donning through a combination of a rigid heel stabilizer that resists collapse and elastic elements that allow the shoe's opening to expand.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Nike entered into a strategic investment and licensing partnership with Plaintiff in 2019, recognizing Plaintiff as a pioneer in the field. It further alleges that Defendant’s own patent applications for similar hands-free technology were repeatedly rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office based on Plaintiff's prior patent rights, a fact that may be significant for allegations of willfulness.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-01-01 | Kizik releases its first hands-free sneaker (approx. date) |
| 2019-01-01 | Nike announces investment and licensing partnership with HFL (approx. date) |
| 2019-07-29 | Earliest Priority Date for '006, '325, '811, '096 Patents |
| 2019-12-19 | Earliest Priority Date for '641, '607 Design Patents |
| 2022-01-01 | Skechers launches Hands Free Slip-ins product line (approx. date) |
| 2023-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,633,006 Issues |
| 2024-01-16 | U.S. Patent No. 11,871,811 Issues |
| 2024-08-06 | U.S. Patent No. D1,037,641 Issues |
| 2024-08-13 | U.S. Patent No. D1,038,607 Issues |
| 2024-10-22 | U.S. Patent No. 12,121,096 Issues |
| 2025-04-15 | U.S. Patent No. 12,274,325 Issues |
| 2025-07-24 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,633,006 - Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element, issued April 25, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience and difficulty some individuals experience when donning and doffing shoes ('006 Patent, col. 1:24-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "rapid-entry shoe" that solves this problem by integrating two key components: an elastic element that allows the foot opening to expand for easy entry, and a rigid "stabilizer" at the rear of the shoe to prevent the heel area from collapsing downward during insertion ('006 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:8-15). The stabilizer is described as having a base portion within the sole and an elevated portion, while the elastic element is located on the side and forms part of the shoe's topline ('006 Patent, col. 1:39-58).
- Technical Importance: This combination of a flexible opening and a rigid, non-collapsing heel structure enables a user to slide their foot into the shoe without using their hands or a shoehorn (Compl. ¶3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A rapid-entry shoe with a sole and an upper.
- An "elastic element" at the side portion that extends to both the topline and the sole portion.
- A "stabilizer" at the rear portion extending from within the sole, comprising a base portion and an elevated portion.
- The stabilizer's base portion defines a "closed cup portion" that extends "completely between lateral and medial sides" of the sole.
- The stabilizer's elevated portion includes a "flare portion" that acts as a shoehorn.
- The stabilizer is made of a "rigid material" to resist downward collapse.
- A "foam liner" oriented concave toward the sole.
- The elastic element is configured to allow the forward portion of the shoe to flex or pivot.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,274,325 - Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element, issued April 15, 2025
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '006 patent, this invention addresses the difficulty associated with putting on shoes ('325 Patent, col. 1:25-29).
- The Patented Solution: This patent also discloses a rapid-entry shoe with a rigid stabilizer, but focuses on a specific geometry of the stabilizer and its functional relationship with a foam liner. The claimed stabilizer has a base with lateral, medial, and midportions forming a "convex structure," while its elevated portion acts as a shoehorn ('325 Patent, Claim 1). A foam liner is specifically claimed as being "coupled to the stabilizer" along this convex structure and "oriented downward toward the sole" to actively "retain a heel" inside the shoe ('325 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific structural configuration designed to both facilitate hands-free entry and ensure the user's heel is securely held in place once the foot is inserted (Compl. ¶3, ¶6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A rapid-entry shoe with a sole, an upper, and a rigid "stabilizer" at the rear of the sole.
- The stabilizer has a "base portion" and an "elevated portion."
- The base portion forms a "convex structure" from its lateral, mid-, and medial portions.
- The midportion of the base extends upward from the sole and "at least partially surrounds a heel portion."
- The elevated portion acts as a "shoehorn."
- A "foam liner" is "coupled to the stabilizer" along the convex structure.
- The foam liner is "oriented downward toward the sole such that the foam liner acts to retain a heel."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,871,811
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,871,811, Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element, issued January 16, 2024 (Compl. ¶32).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of difficult shoe entry by combining a unitary stabilizer with a "plurality of elastic elements" positioned forward of the shoe's rear portion ('811 Patent, col. 1:30-34). The claims require these elastic elements (e.g., a first and second element) to be separated by a "non-elastic portion of the upper," which together allow the foot opening to expand for entry and contract for a secure fit ('811 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused products' use of features like stretch laces and engineered mesh panels, which are separated by non-elastic materials, constitute the claimed "plurality of elastic elements" that work in conjunction with a unitary stabilizer (Compl. ¶49).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,121,096
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,121,096, Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element, issued October 22, 2024 (Compl. ¶34).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a highly specific geometric arrangement for enabling rapid entry ('096 Patent, col. 1:30-34). The invention claims a stabilizer and a plurality of elastic elements comprising at least a first, second, and third element with specific spatial relationships. A key feature is that the second elastic element has a "continuous outer perimeter" and is "completely surrounded by the upper material that is non-elastic," distinguishing it from typical elastic gores that extend to an edge ('096 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain Skechers models incorporate a plurality of elastic elements matching the claimed spatial configuration, including an element fully enclosed by non-elastic material, in combination with a stabilizer and a foam liner (Compl. ¶53).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. D1,037,641 & U.S. Patent No. D1,038,607
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent Nos. D1,037,641 (Footwear, issued Aug. 6, 2024) and D1,038,607 (Footwear, issued Aug. 13, 2024) (Compl. ¶¶36, 38).
- Technology Synopsis: These patents claim the ornamental designs for footwear. The figures in both patents show the side profile of a shoe, with the claimed design focused on a distinctive lattice-like or grid pattern on the external heel counter ('641 Patent, FIG. 1; '607 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 of each patent (Compl. ¶¶57, 61).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "prominently patterned heel design" on accused Skechers shoes creates an overall appearance that is substantially similar to the claimed designs, infringing under the ordinary observer test (Compl. ¶7, ¶27). The complaint includes a visual comparison in Table 1, which compares a figure from the '641 Patent to an image of an accused Skechers shoe (Compl. ¶27, p. 13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Skechers Hands Free Slip-ins" product line, which includes but is not limited to the Arch Fit, Max Cushioning, Ultra Flex, GO WALK, and D'Lites models (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are shoes designed for hands-free entry. They are alleged to incorporate a "Molded Heel Structure," a "Heel Pillow," and elastic upper elements (e.g., "Stretch Fit" material and stretch laces) (Compl. ¶¶17, 23). The complaint asserts that the core infringing functionality is enabled by a "firm heel design that keeps its shape as you slide your foot in," which works in concert with the elastic elements to allow easy entry (Compl. ¶17). The complaint provides a three-image sequence demonstrating this hands-free entry process for an accused product (Compl. ¶22, p. 11).
- The complaint alleges that the "Hands Free Slip-ins" line is Skechers' "most important product line," promoted via a Super Bowl ad and accounting for approximately 35% of products on its website (Compl. ¶1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'006 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rapid-entry shoe comprising: a sole portion and an upper... | Skechers Slip-ins are rapid-entry shoes with a sole and upper. | ¶41 | col. 4:20-25 |
| an elastic element disposed at the side portion, the elastic element extending to and forming a portion of a topline... and the elastic element further extending to the sole portion | The shoes include elastic elements (e.g., "Stretch Fit" material, stretch laces) at the side, extending to the topline and toward the sole. | ¶23, ¶41 | col. 4:26-34 |
| a stabilizer disposed at the rear portion and extending from within the sole portion, the stabilizer comprising a base portion at least partially within the sole portion and an elevated portion | The "Molded Heel Structure" is a stabilizer at the rear of the shoe with a base portion in the sole and an elevated portion extending upward. | ¶17, ¶20, ¶41 | col. 6:31-33 |
| wherein the base portion of the stabilizer defines a closed cup portion extending completely between lateral and medial sides of the sole portion | The base of the stabilizer allegedly forms a closed cup that extends fully across the heel area between the lateral and medial sides of the sole. | ¶41 | col. 11:47-50 |
| wherein the elevated portion of the stabilizer comprises a flare portion extending rearward to direct a foot into a foot opening of the rapid-entry shoe | The upper part of the stabilizer is flared to act as a shoehorn, guiding the user's foot into the shoe. | ¶22, ¶41 | col. 6:60-64 |
| wherein the stabilizer is comprised of a rigid material such that the rear portion of the upper...is configured to resist downward collapse | The "Molded Heel Structure" is described as "firm" and is alleged to be rigid enough to prevent the heel from collapsing during entry. | ¶17, ¶22, ¶41 | col. 12:1-4 |
| wherein the rapid-entry shoe comprises a foam liner oriented concave toward the sole portion | The shoes include a "Heel Pillow" or "Comfort Pillow" that is a foam liner alleged to be oriented concave toward the sole. | ¶25, ¶41 | col. 12:5-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused stabilizer's base meets the "closed cup portion extending completely between lateral and medial sides" limitation. This language suggests a specific, fully enclosing structure at the sole level that may be a point of dispute. Further, the construction of "extending to the sole portion" for the elastic element may be at issue, depending on the physical termination point of the accused elastic features.
- Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the "Molded Heel Structure" originates "from within the sole portion" as claimed, rather than being a component attached to the upper or the top of the sole?
'325 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a rapid-entry shoe comprising: a sole, an upper, and a stabilizer provided at a rear portion of the sole and comprised of a rigid material | Skechers Slip-ins have a sole, upper, and a rigid "Molded Heel Structure" at the rear. | ¶17, ¶45 | col. 12:13-17 |
| the stabilizer comprising: a base portion proximate to the sole; and an elevated portion extending upward from the base portion | The stabilizer has a base portion near the sole and an elevated portion. | ¶20, ¶45 | col. 12:18-20 |
| wherein the lateral portion..., the midportion... and the medial portion of the base portion form a convex structure | The base of the stabilizer is alleged to form a convex structure at the heel. | ¶20, ¶45 | col. 12:21-25 |
| the elevated portion... extends rearward from a rear portion of the convex structure and acts as a shoehorn | The elevated part of the stabilizer extends rearward from this convex base to function as a shoehorn. | ¶22, ¶45 | col. 12:31-33 |
| a foam liner coupled to the stabilizer between the medial portion of the base portion and the lateral portion of the base portion along the convex structure | The "Heel Pillow" is a foam liner alleged to be coupled to the stabilizer along its convex structure. | ¶25, ¶45 | col. 12:34-38 |
| at least a portion of the foam liner... oriented downward toward the sole such that the foam liner acts to retain a heel | The "Heel Pillow" is alleged to be oriented downward toward the sole to perform the function of retaining the user's heel. | ¶25, ¶45 | col. 12:38-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "coupled to" will be critical. Does it require direct physical bonding between the foam liner and the stabilizer, or can it be met by indirect attachment through intermediate layers of the shoe's upper?
- Technical Questions: What factual evidence will support the allegation that the accused "Heel Pillow" is "oriented downward toward the sole" and "acts to retain a heel" in the specific manner claimed? The dispute may focus on whether the pillow is merely for comfort or if it has the specific orientation and heel-retention function required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "stabilizer" ('006 and '325 Patents)
- Context and Importance: This is the core rigid component of the inventions. Its construction will determine whether Skechers' "Molded Heel Structure" infringes. The dispute will center on the specific structural and geometric properties required to meet this term as used in the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification generally describes the stabilizer's function as preventing the rear portion of the shoe from "collapsing downward" ('006 Patent, col. 6:11-15), which might support interpreting the term to cover any sufficiently rigid heel counter that performs this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '006 patent requires the stabilizer's base to define a "closed cup portion," and Claim 1 of the '325 patent requires its base to form a "convex structure." These specific geometric limitations, combined with figures like FIG. 1A showing a distinct structure integrated with the sole, may support a narrower construction limited to heel counters with these precise attributes.
The Term: "foam liner" ('006 and '325 Patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is mapped to the accused "Heel Pillow." Its construction is critical for determining infringement, particularly under the '325 patent, which claims a specific function and orientation for the liner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '325 patent specification states the liner can provide "heel retention and/or comfort" ('325 Patent, col. 7:5-7), which could suggest a broader meaning encompassing any heel padding.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '325 patent requires the liner to be "coupled to the stabilizer," "oriented downward toward the sole," and to "act to retain a heel." This combination of structural coupling, specific orientation, and function points toward a narrower definition than a generic comfort pad. Similarly, Claim 1 of the '006 patent requires the liner to be "oriented concave toward the sole portion."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as separate counts, the complaint alleges facts that could support claims for indirect infringement. It alleges that Skechers' marketing materials and online visuals depict and describe the hands-free use of the accused products, which may form the basis for an inducement claim by alleging Skechers instructs customers to perform the infringing use (Compl. ¶¶17, 22).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint strongly alleges willful infringement. The primary basis is the allegation that Skechers had pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's patents because Skechers' own patent applications on similar technology were allegedly rejected by the USPTO with citations to Plaintiff's patents (Compl. ¶6). This allegation, if proven, suggests not just knowledge of the patents but a specific consideration of their relevance to Skechers' own technology. The complaint also alleges willfulness based on notice from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶7).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the accused products' "Molded Heel Structure" and "Heel Pillow" possess the specific geometric and functional attributes required by the asserted claims? This will turn on the construction of terms such as the "closed cup portion" ('006 Patent) and the precise coupling and downward orientation of the "foam liner" for heel retention ('325 Patent).
- For the design patents, a central question for the fact-finder will be one of deceptive similarity: Would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art of shoe design, perceive the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Skechers heel patterns to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in the '641 and '607 patents?
- A critical evidentiary battle may revolve around willfulness: Can Plaintiff prove that Skechers knew of the patents and the high likelihood of infringement—particularly through the alleged rejection of its own patent applications—and proceeded with "objective recklessness" despite that knowledge?