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., 12/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Skechers has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there, specifically through the operation of retail stores in Sherman, Texarkana, Tyler, and Beaumont.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hands Free Slip-ins" line of footwear infringes eight U.S. patents related to rapid-entry shoe technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves footwear constructions that enable a user to put on a shoe without using their hands, typically by combining a rigid heel structure that resists collapse with flexible or elastic elements that expand the shoe's opening.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Nike, Inc. entered into a strategic investment and licensing partnership with Plaintiff in 2019, recognizing it as a pioneer in the field. It further alleges that Defendant Skechers had pre-suit knowledge of at least one asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,633,006, because it was cited during the prosecution of a Skechers patent application. The complaint also alleges that Skechers has ordered products from Plaintiff's affiliate Kizik since at least 2019.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-01-01 Kizik releases its first hands-free sneaker
2019-01-01 Nike announces strategic partnership with HFL
2019-01-01 Skechers allegedly begins ordering Kizik products
2019-07-29 Earliest Priority Date (’006, ’811, ’096, ’325, ’660 Patents)
2022-01-01 Skechers launches Hands Free Slip-ins product line
2022-11-17 Earliest Filing Date (’101 Patent)
2023-02-01 Skechers airs 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
2024-11-01 Skechers allegedly knew of '006 patent via patent prosecution citation
2025-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 12,274,325 Issues
2025-11-04 U.S. Patent No. 12,458,101 Issues
2025-11-18 U.S. Patent No. 12,471,660 Issues
2025-12-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent Nos. 12,274,325; 12,471,660; and D1,037,641 are also asserted in the complaint but the corresponding patent documents were not provided for detailed 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 background describes that donning and doffing shoes, including tying or securing them, can be undesirable or present difficulties for some individuals (’006 Patent, col. 1:25-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention combines a rigid "stabilizer" at the rear of the shoe with an "elastic element" at the side. The stabilizer is configured to prevent the heel area from collapsing downward when a user inserts their foot, while the elastic element expands to enlarge the foot opening during entry and then contracts to reduce the opening for a secure fit (’006 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:7-15). The stabilizer has a specific structure including a base portion within the sole and an elevated portion, which together form a cup shape with a defined curvature (’006 Patent, col. 6:30-54).
  • Technical Importance: This combination of a non-collapsing heel and an expandable opening provides a structural solution for hands-free footwear entry, enhancing convenience and accessibility (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A rapid-entry shoe with a sole portion and an upper.
    • An elastic element at the side portion, forming part of the topline and extending to 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 extending completely between lateral and medial sides of the sole portion."
    • The stabilizer has a curvature that "extends progressively less" from the base toward the elevated portion.
    • The elevated portion includes a "flare portion extending rearward" to act 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 enable the shoe's forward portion to flex or pivot.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,871,811 - “Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element,” issued January 16, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience or inability some individuals face when donning and doffing shoes (’811 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a rapid-entry shoe featuring a "stabilizer defining a unitary structure" that extends from the sole toward the rear of the foot opening. This is paired with a "plurality of elastic elements" located forward of the shoe's rear portion. These elastic elements are designed to expand to enlarge the foot opening and contract to reduce it, with at least a first and second elastic element being "separated by a non-elastic portion of the upper" (’811 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:42-56).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides an alternative configuration for hands-free entry by defining the elastic components as a plurality of distinct elements separated by non-elastic material, offering different design and functional possibilities (Compl. ¶4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A rapid-entry shoe with a sole portion.
    • An upper coupled to the sole, defining a foot opening.
    • A stabilizer defining a "unitary structure" extending from the sole portion toward a rear portion of the foot opening.
    • A "plurality of elastic elements" positioned forward of the upper's rear portion, operable to enlarge and reduce the foot opening.
    • The plurality includes "at least a first elastic element and a second elastic element, the first and second elastic elements being separated by a non-elastic portion of the upper."
  • 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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,274,325, “Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element,” issued April 15, 2025 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint describes this patent as claiming a rapid-entry shoe with a rigid stabilizer at the rear of the sole. The stabilizer comprises a base portion forming a convex structure and an elevated portion acting as a shoehorn, with a foam liner coupled along the convex structure to retain the heel (Compl. ¶55).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶55).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to have a stabilizer with a convex base, an elevated shoehorn portion, and a foam liner for heel retention (Compl. ¶55).

U.S. Patent No. 12,121,096 - “Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element,” issued October 22, 2024

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,121,096, “Rapid-entry footwear having a stabilizer and an elastic element,” issued October 22, 2024 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a rapid-entry shoe with a unitary stabilizer, a plurality of elastic elements, and a foam liner. The claims require at least three elastic elements, with specific requirements for their extension relative to the shoe's top line, and a foam liner that is spaced from the top line to provide heel retention (’096 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:14-41).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶63).
  • Accused Features: Certain Skechers models, including the Swift Fit Delson and Glide-Step Pro, are alleged to feature at least three elastic elements (e.g., lateral and medial strips/gores and stretch laces) that meet the claim limitations (Compl. ¶64).

U.S. Patent No. 12,458,101 - “Rapid-Entry Shoe,” issued November 4, 2025

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,458,101, “Rapid-Entry Shoe,” issued November 4, 2025 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a shoe with a heel structure composed of a lower, mid, and upper portion forming a "single continuous piece." This structure is configured to lower and pivot about an axis when a user's foot applies pressure, while a flexible material in the upper expands to facilitate entry (’101 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:53-64).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to have a heel structure that pivots and lowers upon foot insertion, along with an expanding flexible upper material (Compl. ¶72).

U.S. Patent No. 12,471,660 - “Rapid-Entry Footwear Having a Stabilizer and an Elastic Element,” issued November 18, 2025

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,471,660, “Rapid-Entry Footwear Having a Stabilizer and an Elastic Element,” issued November 18, 2025 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint describes this patent as directed to a shoe with a unitary stabilizer configured to support the rear of the upper during foot insertion. It also includes an elastic element to manage the foot opening size and a foam liner coupled to the stabilizer to retain the heel (Compl. ¶76).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶76).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to include the claimed sole, upper, elastic element, stabilizer, and foam liner features (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. D1,037,641 - “Footwear,” issued August 6, 2024

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,037,641, “Footwear,” issued August 6, 2024 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a design patent, it protects the ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, footwear. The claim covers the visual appearance of the shoe as depicted in the patent's figures.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall appearance of certain Skechers Hands Free Slip-ins models, such as the Ultra Flex 3.0, is substantially the same as the patented design, providing a visual comparison table to support this allegation (Compl. ¶¶33-34, 68; Table 1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s footwear products in the "Skechers Hands Free Slip-ins" line (Compl. ¶20). The complaint identifies numerous specific product families, including Arch Fit, Max Cushioning, Ultra Flex, Glide-Step, GO WALK, and others (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are marketed as enabling hands-free functionality through a combination of features Skechers calls the "Heel Pillow," a "Molded Heel Structure," and elastic upper elements (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges that the "firm heel design that keeps its shape" allows a user to slide their foot in without the heel collapsing (Compl. ¶20, ¶27). The complaint includes an annotated image illustrating that the heel structure is formed of continuous lower, mid, and upper regions (Compl. p. 13). Further, it provides visuals from a marketing video to allege that the heel structure is designed to lower and pivot in response to foot insertion (Compl. ¶28, p. 14). Plaintiff alleges this product line is Skechers' "most important," was launched with a Super Bowl ad, and accounts for approximately 35% of the products listed on Skechers' website (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 stabilizer disposed at the rear portion...comprising a base portion at least partially within the sole portion and an elevated portion The accused products include a "Molded Heel Structure" that forms a stabilizer at the rear of the shoe. ¶23, ¶25 col. 6:30-33
wherein the base portion of the stabilizer defines a closed cup portion extending completely between lateral and medial sides of the sole portion The stabilizer portion is alleged to form a convex structure at the heel that extends between the lateral and medial sides. ¶23 col. 11:46-49
wherein the stabilizer comprises a curvature between its lateral and medial sides, and wherein, from the base portion toward the elevated portion, the curvature extends progressively less between its lateral and medial sides The stabilizer is alleged to have a curvature between the lateral and medial sides extending from the rear of the shoe. ¶25 col. 11:50-55
wherein the elevated portion of the stabilizer comprises a flare portion extending rearward to direct a foot into a foot opening The elevated portion of the stabilizer is alleged to act as a shoehorn to direct a foot into the shoe's opening. ¶25 col. 11:56-59
an elastic element disposed at the side portion, the elastic element extending to...a topline...and the elastic element further extending to the sole portion The accused products include elastic elements such as Stretch Fit, mesh uppers, and stretch laces. ¶30, ¶31 col. 11:40-44
wherein the rapid-entry shoe comprises a foam liner oriented concave toward the sole portion The accused products incorporate a "Heel Pillow" or "Comfort Pillow," which is a foam liner oriented concave toward the sole. ¶32 col. 12:6-8

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused "Molded Heel Structure" constitutes a "closed cup portion extending completely between" the sole's sides, as required by the claim. A central question may be whether the term "stabilizer," as defined with specific structural limitations in the claim, reads on the accused product's combination of a "Molded Heel Structure" and separate "Heel Pillow."
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question could be whether any "elastic element" in the accused products "extend[s] to the sole portion," as this is a specific structural requirement of Claim 1. The complaint includes a marketing screenshot describing a "Stretch Fit® design for sock-like comfort," which may be presented as evidence of this element (Compl. ¶29, p. 15).

U.S. Patent No. 11,871,811 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a stabilizer defining a unitary structure extending from the sole portion toward a rear portion of the foot opening The accused products include a "Molded Heel Structure" that is alleged to be a unitary stabilizer extending from the sole. ¶23, ¶25 col. 11:48-50
a plurality of elastic elements positioned forward of the rear portion of the upper Accused products contain multiple elastic elements, such as engineered knit uppers, elastic gores, and stretch laces. ¶30, ¶31 col. 11:51-52
wherein the plurality of elastic elements includes at least a first elastic element and a second elastic element, the first and second elastic elements being separated by a non-elastic portion of the upper The complaint alleges that the elastic elements (e.g., heel cup, tongue webbing) are separated by non-elastic portions of the upper. ¶31 col. 11:54-56

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the term "separated by a non-elastic portion of the upper." The court may need to determine what degree of separation and what material properties qualify as "non-elastic" in the context of footwear uppers, which often contain a mix of materials with varying flexibility.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the various flexible materials in the accused shoes function as distinct "elastic elements" under the patent's definition, or if they are better characterized as a single, integrated flexible upper. The complaint provides images of the Skechers Glide Step Pro, which appears to show distinct elastic side panels and separate stretch laces, as evidence of this configuration (Compl. p. 10).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’006 Patent

  • The Term: "closed cup portion extending completely between lateral and medial sides of the sole portion"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural attribute of the claimed "stabilizer." The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused "Molded Heel Structure" meets this specific geometric and structural requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to define a specific, continuous structure integrated with the sole, which may differ from the structure of the accused products.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stabilizer's function broadly as preventing downward collapse and notes it can be comprised of various stiff or semi-rigid materials, potentially allowing for different structural forms that achieve this function (’006 Patent, col. 6:12-17).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is quite specific, requiring a "closed cup" that extends "completely" between the sides. The patent figures, such as FIG. 1A, depict a distinct, continuous U-shaped structure embedded in the sole, which could be argued to limit the scope of the term to such an embodiment (’006 Patent, FIG. 1A).

For the ’811 Patent

  • The Term: "separated by a non-elastic portion of the upper"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the relationship between the "plurality of elastic elements" and is central to distinguishing the invention. The infringement case against products with multiple types of flexible materials will depend on whether those materials are considered "separated" by "non-elastic" material.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "non-elastic," which could support a plain and ordinary meaning where any material with substantially less elasticity than the "elastic elements" qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The dependent claims add limitations about the specific placement of elastic elements (e.g., on the side portion vs. the vamp), suggesting the "separation" is a meaningful structural distinction, not just a transition between materials of different elasticity (’811 Patent, col. 12:1-12). The term could be construed to require a structurally distinct and rigid component between the elastic elements.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

While no formal count for indirect infringement is pleaded, the complaint includes allegations that could potentially support a future claim for induced infringement. It states that Skechers' marketing materials and videos describe and depict the infringing functionality, which could be construed as instructing users on how to perform the infringing action of using the hands-free entry feature (Compl. ¶¶28-29).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶52, 56, 60, 65, 69, 73, 77). The basis for pre-suit knowledge includes allegations that Skechers knew of the asserted ’006 patent as early as November 2024 because it was cited in the prosecution of Skechers' own patent application (Compl. ¶7). Willfulness is also alleged based on Skechers' monitoring and copying of Kizik's commercial products since at least 2019, and the allegation that former Skechers employees were tasked with designing infringing shoes while aware of HFL's patent rights (Compl. ¶9).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: How narrowly will the court define the structural limitations of the "stabilizer" element recited in the asserted claims? The outcome may depend on whether Skechers' "Molded Heel Structure" and "Heel Pillow" combination is found to meet detailed requirements such as being a "unitary structure" or having a "closed cup portion extending completely" across the sole.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical infringement: Does the arrangement of flexible materials in the accused shoes—such as mesh uppers, elastic gores, and stretch laces—satisfy the specific claim requirements for a "plurality of elastic elements...separated by a non-elastic portion" or an elastic element that "extend[s] to the sole portion"?
  • A third central issue will be willfulness and damages: Given the specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge based on patent prosecution history and alleged commercial copying, the question of whether any infringement was willful is positioned to be a critical component of the case, potentially leading to enhanced damages if infringement is established.