Overton Enterprises LLC v. Back Bay Brands LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Overton Enterprises, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Back Bay Brands, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Spencer Fane LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01460, W.D. Tex., 09/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Texas company subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and has a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s running belt product infringes a patent related to a wearable belt with an expandable pouch.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to wearable accessories for athletes, specifically belts designed to carry personal items such as keys and phones during rigorous physical activity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant on August 14, 2025, advising Defendant of the patent and the alleged infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-02-13	’654 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-31	’654 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-14	Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Defendant
2025-08-19	Defendant's counsel confirms receipt of letter
2025-09-05	Plaintiff's counsel follows up with Defendant's counsel
2025-09-09	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,104,654 - Belt With Expandable Pouch

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art running belts and pouches as being cumbersome, having multiple compartments that make accessing a single item difficult, and allowing small items to bounce around distractingly during physical activity (’654 Patent, col. 1:13-24; col. 2:5-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a waist belt with a single pouch made from a piece of elastic, expandable fabric that can expand its internal volume by 300-400% or more (’654 Patent, Abstract). In a preferred embodiment, the back of the pouch incorporates pleats that allow it to remain compact when empty but unfold to accommodate larger items, while the structure remains taut against the wearer's body to prevent bouncing (’654 Patent, col. 3:1-9; col. 8:30-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a minimalist, adaptable solution for athletes who needed to carry either a single small item or multiple larger items securely and without distraction during rigorous exercise (’654 Patent, col. 2:13-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A wearable apparatus with a belt and an expandable pouch defining an internal volume.
  • The pouch is comprised of a piece of material, with the belt ends attached to the pouch ends.
  • The pouch comprises first and second folds spaced apart by a section of pouch material.
  • The first fold and pouch material section form a recess into which the second fold is received when the pouch is in a substantially non-expanded condition.
  • The recess is external to the pouch's internal volume.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Back Bay Non-Slip Running Belt," which is also referred to as the "Slim Running Belt" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused product is a running belt that infringes the ’654 Patent and was created by "knowingly and willfully copying Overton's patented belt" (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The product is allegedly sold on www.amazon.com, in Walmart stores, and on Defendant's website (Compl. ¶13).
• The complaint alleges the Defendant is trading on Plaintiff's investments in research and development and leveraging the patented technology to grow its own market share (Compl. ¶12, 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Back Bay Belt infringes at least claim 1 of the ’654 Patent, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶18). It further states that an "exemplary claim chart mapping the Back Bay Belt to the elements of claim 1" is attached as Exhibit F (Compl. ¶18). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, the complaint body itself contains no narrative, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning and scope of the "folds" and "recess" limitations in claim 1. The analysis will question whether the claim requires the specific pleated structure detailed in the ’654 Patent’s preferred embodiments (e.g., ’654 Patent, Fig. 5), or if it can be read more broadly to cover other methods of constructing an expandable pouch from a single piece of fabric.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused Back Bay Belt is constructed with "first and second folds" where one fold is "received" into a "recess" formed by the other fold when the pouch is not expanded, as required by claim 1. The complaint does not provide evidence, such as photographs or technical diagrams, of the accused product's specific construction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "first and second folds ... forming a recess into which said second fold is received"
• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core structural characteristic of the pouch in claim 1. The construction of this term will likely determine whether the claim is limited to a specific pleated design or covers a wider range of expandable pouches.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the plain meaning of "fold" simply requires overlapping layers of fabric, and a "recess" is any resulting external indentation, without being limited to the specific geometry shown in the figures.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to this structure as "pleats" (’654 Patent, col. 7:14; col. 8:30). The detailed description and figures illustrate a specific arrangement where an "outer fold 44 is still folded over inner fold 45" when an item is placed inside, and where these folds form an overlapping structure when empty (’654 Patent, col. 8:38-49; Figs. 4-7). A defendant could argue these embodiments define the claimed "folds" and "recess" as requiring this specific pleated construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant encourages end-users to infringe by advertising and marketing the Back Bay Belt on platforms like Amazon and its own website (Compl. ¶24-25).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’654 Patent at least as of receiving a cease and desist letter on August 14, 2025, and its continued infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶20, 23). The complaint also makes a broader allegation of "knowingly and willfully copying Overton's patented belt," which may suggest an argument for pre-letter knowledge (Compl. ¶12).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the claim language "first and second folds...forming a recess," when read in light of the patent's specification and figures, require a specific pleated construction, or can it be construed to cover any expandable pouch made with overlapping fabric layers?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of structural identity: what is the actual physical construction of the accused Back Bay Belt? The resolution of the case will depend on factual evidence demonstrating whether that product possesses the specific fold-and-recess structure mandated by the court's interpretation of claim 1.