DCT

2:25-cv-00744

Handsfree Labs Licensing LLC v. Skechers USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00744, E.D. Tex., 11/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates retail stores within the district, is registered to do business in Texas, has previously been sued in the district, and conducts substantial commercial activities there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hands Free Slip-in" footwear infringes multiple utility and design patents related to rapid-entry shoe technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates hands-free shoe entry by combining rigid heel structures that resist collapse with elastic elements that expand the shoe's opening.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Nike entered into a strategic investment and licensing partnership with Plaintiff HFL in 2019. It also alleges that Defendant had knowledge of at least one of the asserted patents because it was cited during the prosecution of one of Defendant’s own patent applications.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-01-01 Kizik releases its first hands-free sneaker
2019-01-01 Skechers allegedly begins ordering marked Kizik products
2019-01-01 Nike announces strategic investment and licensing partnership with HFL
2019-07-29 Earliest Priority Date for ’006, ’325, ’811, and ’096 Patents
2019-12-19 Priority Date for ’641 Design Patent
2022-01-01 Skechers launches Hands Free Slip-ins product line
2023-01-01 Skechers runs Super Bowl ad for Hands Free Slip-ins
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
2024-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 12,121,096 Issues
2025-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 12,274,325 Issues
2025-11-04 U.S. Patent No. 12,458,101 Issues
2025-11-04 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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11633006, "Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element," issued April 25, 2023.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies that donning and doffing shoes, including tying or securing them, can be undesirable or difficult for some individuals (’006 Patent, col. 1:24-28).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "rapid-entry shoe" that combines two key features: a rigid "stabilizer" at the rear of the shoe to prevent the heel area from collapsing downward during entry, and an "elastic element" located on the side or forward portion of the shoe that expands to enlarge the foot opening as the user's foot slides in and then contracts to provide a secure fit (’006 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:8-19). This dual-component system is designed to enable hands-free use without compromising the shoe's structure or fit (’006 Patent, Fig. 1A).
    • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to solve the core mechanical challenge of hands-free footwear: allowing easy entry while ensuring the shoe remains securely on the foot during use.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
    • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
      • A rapid-entry shoe with a sole portion and an upper.
      • An elastic element at the side portion that extends to and forms part of the shoe’s topline and also extends to the sole portion.
      • A stabilizer at the rear portion extending from within the sole, which has a base portion and an elevated portion.
      • The stabilizer’s base portion defines a "closed cup portion" that extends completely between the lateral and medial sides of the sole.
      • The stabilizer has a curvature, and its elevated portion has a "flare portion" that acts as a shoehorn.
      • Expansion of the elastic element enlarges the foot opening, while contraction reduces it.
      • The stabilizer is made of a rigid material to resist downward collapse.
      • The shoe includes a foam liner that is oriented concave toward the sole.
      • The elastic element allows the forward portion of the shoe to flex or pivot forward.
    • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1," which may suggest an intent to assert other claims later (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 12,274,325 - Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12274325, "Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element," issued April 15, 2025.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same difficulty and inconvenience associated with putting on conventional shoes (’325 Patent, col. 1:27-31).
    • The Patented Solution: This invention details a specific geometry for the stabilizer and its integration with a foam liner for heel retention. The stabilizer is described as having a base portion composed of lateral, medial, and midportions that form a convex structure. Crucially, the midportion extends upward continuously from the sole to surround the heel (’325 Patent, col. 11:41-54). A foam liner is coupled along this convex structure and is oriented downward to "act to retain a heel" (’325 Patent, col. 11:60-65).
    • Technical Importance: The invention focuses on the precise structural relationship between a uniquely shaped heel stabilizer and a foam liner to create an effective heel-retention system for rapid-entry footwear.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
    • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
      • A rapid-entry shoe with a sole, an upper, and a rigid stabilizer at the rear.
      • The stabilizer has a base portion near the sole and an elevated portion extending upward.
      • The base portion has lateral, medial, and midportions that together form a convex structure.
      • The midportion extends upward "continuously" from the sole and partially surrounds the heel portion.
      • The elevated portion extends rearward and acts as a shoehorn.
      • A foam liner is coupled to the stabilizer along the convex structure.
      • A portion of the foam liner extends beyond the base portion and is oriented downward toward the sole to retain the heel.
    • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶53).

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,871,811: This patent, titled "Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element" and issued January 16, 2024, describes a shoe with a unitary stabilizer and a plurality of distinct elastic elements (at least two separated by a non-elastic section) located forward of the rear upper (’811 Patent, Abstract). These elements expand to enlarge the foot opening for entry and contract to secure the foot (’811 Patent, col. 12:47-56). The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and accuses Skechers Slip-ins of having a unitary stabilizer and multiple, separate elastic elements (Compl. ¶57).

  • U.S. Patent No. 12,121,096: This patent, titled "Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element" and issued October 22, 2024, claims a shoe with a specific arrangement of at least three elastic elements, where two extend to the topline and one does not (’096 Patent, Abstract). It also requires a foam liner spaced from the sole and a tongue coupled to at least one elastic element (’096 Patent, col. 12:46-67). The complaint asserts independent claim 13 and accuses Skechers' Glide-Step Pro models of incorporating at least three such elastic elements (e.g., lateral/medial strips and stretch laces) (Compl. ¶61).

  • U.S. Patent No. D1,037,641: This design patent, titled "Footwear" and issued August 6, 2024, protects the ornamental appearance of a footwear design, particularly a distinct pattern on the heel portion, as depicted in its figures (’641 Patent, Figs. 1-4). The complaint asserts claim 1 and alleges that the overall appearance of certain Skechers Slip-ins is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶65, Table 1).

  • U.S. Patent No. 12,458,101: This patent, titled "Rapid-Entry Shoe" and issued November 4, 2025, is alleged to cover a heel structure made of a single continuous piece with lower, mid, and upper portions (Compl. ¶69). The structure is designed to lower and pivot as a user inserts their foot, while a flexible upper material expands to accommodate entry (Compl. ¶69). The complaint asserts independent claim 7 and accuses Skechers Slip-ins of using this pivoting and lowering heel mechanism (Compl. ¶69).

  • Patent Issuing from App. No. 18/371,414: The complaint asserts allowed claim 1 of this pending application, which is expected to issue as a patent (Compl. ¶43, ¶73). The allowed claim is described as covering a rapid-entry shoe with a sole, an upper, an elastic element, a unitary stabilizer configured to support the rear upper during foot insertion, and a foam liner for heel retention (Compl. ¶73). The complaint accuses Skechers Slip-ins of incorporating all of these claimed features (Compl. ¶73).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the footwear models within the "Skechers Hands Free Slip-ins" product line, including but not limited to the Arch Fit, Max Cushioning, Ultra Flex, and Glide-Step lines (Compl. ¶20-21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are marketed as shoes that can be put on without using one's hands (Compl. ¶18, ¶20). The complaint alleges they achieve this functionality through features described by Skechers as a "Heel Pillow," a "Molded Heel Structure," and elastic upper elements (Compl. ¶20). The complaint cites Skechers' description that a "firm heel design... keeps its shape as you slide your foot in" and an "exclusive Heel Pillowâ„¢ that holds your foot securely in place" (Compl. ¶20, ¶30). An image in the complaint shows the Skechers Hands Free Slip-ins logo and marketing language (Compl. p. 8).
  • The complaint alleges this product line is critically important to Skechers, representing around 35% of the products on its website and promoted via a Super Bowl advertisement (Compl. ¶1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 11,633,006 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... The accused Skechers Slip-ins are shoes that include a sole and an upper. ¶23, ¶49 col. 3:20-25
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 accused products allegedly include elastic elements (e.g., Stretch Fit, mesh, stretch laces) on the side that form part of the topline and extend toward the sole. ¶28, ¶49 col. 4:26-34
a stabilizer disposed at the rear portion and extending from within the sole portion, the stabilizer comprising a base portion... and an elevated portion The accused products allegedly have a "Molded Heel Structure" that acts as a stabilizer at the rear of the shoe and extends from the sole portion. ¶23, ¶49 col. 6:31-34
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 accused stabilizer allegedly forms a closed cup that extends fully across the sole from one side to the other. ¶49 col. 11:46-49
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 accused heel structure is alleged to be flared to act as a shoehorn, guiding the foot into the shoe. ¶25, ¶49 col. 6:61-64
wherein expansion or deformation of the elastic element enlarges the foot opening... and wherein contraction of the elastic element reduces the foot opening The elastic elements in the accused products allegedly expand to widen the opening during foot entry and contract to tighten it afterward. ¶29, ¶49 col. 4:31-34
wherein the stabilizer is comprised of a rigid material such that the rear portion of the upper... is configured to resist downward collapse The accused products' "firm heel design" is allegedly made of a rigid material that prevents the heel from collapsing when a user steps in. ¶27, ¶49 col. 5:10-16
wherein the rapid-entry shoe comprises a foam liner oriented concave toward the sole portion The accused products' "Heel Pillow" is alleged to be a foam liner shaped with a concavity facing toward the sole. ¶30, ¶49 col. 7:5-10

U.S. Patent No. 12,274,325 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 The accused products are shoes with a sole, upper, and a rigid "Molded Heel Structure" at the rear. ¶53 col. 11:36-39
The stabilizer... comprises a base portion proximate to the sole and an elevated portion extending upward from the base portion The accused heel structure allegedly includes a base portion near the sole and an elevated portion extending up from it. ¶53 col. 6:3-5
The base portion... comprises a lateral portion..., a medial portion..., and a midportion... form a convex structure The base of the accused stabilizer allegedly has lateral, medial, and midportions that form a convex, outwardly curved structure at the heel. ¶53 col. 11:45-51
wherein the midportion of the base portion of the stabilizer extends upward from the sole continuously... and at least partially surrounds a heel portion The midportion of the accused stabilizer base allegedly extends in an unbroken manner upward from the sole to partially cup the user's heel. ¶53 col. 11:51-54
The elevated portion of the stabilizer... extends rearward from a rear portion of the convex structure and acts as a shoehorn The upper part of the accused stabilizer is alleged to extend backward from the heel cup to guide the foot. An annotated image in the complaint depicts this shoehorn function (Compl. ¶25, p. 13). ¶53 col. 11:55-57
a foam liner coupled to the stabilizer... along the convex structure... oriented downward toward the sole such that the foam liner acts to retain a heel The accused products' "Heel Pillow" is alleged to be a foam liner attached along the convex heel structure and angled downward to hold the heel in place. ¶30, ¶53 col. 11:58-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused "Molded Heel Structure" meets the specific structural definitions of the claimed "stabilizer," such as the '006 patent's requirement for a "closed cup portion extending completely between lateral and medial sides" or the '325 patent's requirement for a midportion that "extends upward from the sole continuously."
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on evidence of how the accused products actually function. What evidence demonstrates that the accused "Heel Pillow" is "oriented downward toward the sole" to retain a heel, as required by claim 1 of the ’325 Patent? Does the accused heel structure in models like the Glide-Step Pro, which is depicted with distinct upper and lower heel components, constitute a "unitary structure" as claimed in other asserted patents (Compl. ¶61, p. 10)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "stabilizer" (’006 Patent, Claim 1; ’325 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This is the core rigid component that enables hands-free entry. Its construction will be dispositive, as the dispute will likely center on whether the accused "Molded Heel Structure" is coextensive with the claimed "stabilizer" and all its limitations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stabilizer's function as preventing the rear portion of the shoe from collapsing, flexing, or pivoting rearward, suggesting the term could cover any structure that achieves this function (’006 Patent, col. 5:19-24).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents consistently depict the stabilizer as a distinct component (150) with specific sub-elements like a base portion (152) and an elevated portion (154) (’006 Patent, Fig. 1A; col. 6:31-32). This may support an argument that the term does not read on a heel counter that is merely an integrated, thickened portion of the shoe's midsole or upper.

  • The Term: "closed cup portion extending completely between lateral and medial sides of the sole portion" (’006 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the scope of the stabilizer's base. Infringement will depend on whether the base of the accused heel structure is found to be a "closed cup" that fully traverses the width of the sole.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "cup portion" may be argued to encompass a variety of shapes that cradle the heel, not just one specific geometry.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The qualifier "extending completely between" suggests an uninterrupted structure from the absolute lateral edge to the absolute medial edge of the sole. This could be used to argue that structures that are embedded only in the central part of the sole, or which do not reach the sole's outer perimeter, fall outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement and does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on Defendant’s citation to the ’006 patent during its own patent prosecution, its alleged ordering of patent-marked Kizik products since 2019, and alleged knowledge held by former employees (Compl. ¶7, ¶9). Post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶10).

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

  1. Claim Construction and Structural Equivalence: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the allegedly infringing components in Skechers' shoes (e.g., the "Molded Heel Structure," "Heel Pillow") be mapped onto the specific structural limitations recited in the patent claims for a "stabilizer" and "foam liner"? The case may turn on whether terms like "closed cup portion" and "extends...continuously" require a specific component architecture that differs from the integrated design of the accused products.
  2. Design Patent Similarity: For the design patent claim, the central question will be one of visual perception: would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, be deceived into thinking the accused Skechers shoe is the same as the design in the ’641 patent? The analysis will focus on the overall ornamental appearance, not on functional elements.
  3. Evidence of Willfulness: A key factual question will be the extent of Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge. The allegation that Skechers cited one of the asserted patents during its own patent prosecution could be significant evidence supporting pre-suit knowledge and, consequently, the claim for willful infringement.