Flygrip Inc v. Walmart Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flygrip, Inc. (New York)
  • Defendant: Walmart Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Gilliland, LLP; Katz PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01082, W.D. Tex., 10/18/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Walmart is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business in the District, and maintains multiple "regular and established places of business" within the District, including in Waco, Hewitt, and Austin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various third-party, add-on grips for handheld devices infringes two patents related to compacting and gripping apparatuses for such devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns accessories that attach to the back of smartphones to provide a more secure one-handed grip, often featuring a collapsible or movable design for storage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents and its infringement allegations via letters on or about March 25, 2021, and again on October 14 and 16, 2021, just prior to filing suit. These allegations of pre-suit notice are foundational to the willfulness claim. The two asserted patents share a common priority claim and are part of the same patent family.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-08-19	Priority Date for ’098 and ’024 Patents
2014-09-30	U.S. Patent No. 8,844,098 Issued
2020-10-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024 Issued
2021-03-25	Plaintiff allegedly sent first notice letter to Defendant
2021-10-14	Plaintiff allegedly sent second notice letter to Defendant
2021-10-16	Plaintiff allegedly sent third notice letter to Defendant
2021-10-18	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,800,024 - “Compacting Grip for Handheld Devices,” Issued October 13, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the difficulty users face in securely gripping large, bar-shaped handheld devices (like modern smartphones) with a single hand, which can limit the thumb's range of motion for screen interaction and lead to the device being dropped (’024 Patent, col. 1:38-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a collapsible and expandable grip that fastens to the back of a handheld device. It consists of a base, an extension, and a grip. The asserted claims focus on an extension made of a "conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" with graduated sections that can flex or fold into one another, moving between a collapsed, flat position and an expanded, open position for use (’024 Patent, Claim 2, col. 9:8-28). The patent also discloses that the grip can be moved into an angled position to serve as a device stand (’024 Patent, col. 7:25-46; Figs. 28-31).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to provide a secure one-handed grip that freed the user's thumb for screen operation, while also being collapsible to maintain a slim profile for portability (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least dependent claim 2, which depends from independent claim 1, against the Otterbox, Popsockets, and Quest products (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23). Claim 2 is itself independent per the patent text. Correction: Per the patent document, Claims 1 and 2 are both independent. The complaint explicitly identifies infringement of Claim 2.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 2:
  • A collapsing and expanding one-hand gripping apparatus fastened or built into the back of a handheld device or its case.
  • A base fastened to the device/case.
  • An extension that extends perpendicularly from the base, consisting "essentially of a single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure."
  • This structure consists of a "plurality of graduated sections, more flexible between the sections, that flex and/or fold over and into one-another."
  • The extension is movable between a collapsed/closed position and an extended/open position.
  • A disc-shaped grip mounted perpendicularly to the end of the extension.
  • The apparatus in the collapsed position lies flat to the handheld device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,844,098 - “Apparatus for Gripping Handheld Devices,” Issued September 30, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’024 Patent: the challenge of securely holding and operating a large-screen handheld device with one hand without restricting the thumb's movement or risking dropping the device (’098 Patent, col. 1:34-47).
• The Patented Solution: The ’098 Patent describes a gripping apparatus that moves between open and closed positions via a specific mechanical structure. The invention uses a "first hinged section" to connect the extension to the base and a "second hinged section" to connect the grip to the extension. This dual-hinge design allows the extension to rotate to a position perpendicular to the device for use, and then fold down with the grip to lie flat against the device for storage (’098 Patent, Claim 1, col. 7:27-54; Figs. 11-13).
• Technical Importance: This design provides a sturdy, deployable grip that can be collapsed to be "substantially coplanar" with the device, which was an important feature for making such accessories pocket-friendly (Compl. ¶10; ’098 Patent, col. 8:65-col. 9:1).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 against the Merkury products (Compl. ¶30).
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • An apparatus for gripping a handheld device comprising a base, an extension, and a substantially planar grip.
  • A "first hinged section" rotatably connecting the extension to the base.
  • A "second hinged section" rotatably connecting the grip to the extension.
  • The hinged sections enable rotation from a closed position (where the base, extension, and grip are substantially parallel to the device) to an open position (where the extension is substantially perpendicular to the device).
  • The apparatus is structured to receive two fingers of a user's hand between the grip and the device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies four lines of accused products sold by Defendant: (1) the Popsockets LLC line of PopGrip products; (2) the Quest USA Corp. line of SpinPop products; (3) the OtterBox Otter+PopSocket line of handheld device cases; and (4) the Merkury Innovations LLC line of Grip'z handheld device grips (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes these products as novel grips for smartphones that allow a user to securely hold the phone with non-thumb fingers, freeing the thumb to operate the touchscreen (Compl. ¶10). They are designed to be thin when collapsed but quickly expandable for use (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges that Walmart derives "substantial revenues" from the sale of these products in the judicial district (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6) that compare the asserted claims to the accused products, but these exhibits were not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 25, 32). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

• ’024 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the OtterBox Otter+PopSocket products directly infringe, and the Popsockets PopGrip and Quest SpinPop products indirectly infringe, at least Claim 2 of the ’024 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23). The core of the allegation is that these products embody a collapsible grip with a base, a disc-shaped top, and an accordion-style flexible extension that constitutes the "single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" of the claim (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 23-24).
• ’098 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Merkury Innovations Grip'z products directly and indirectly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’098 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31). The infringement theory is that these products satisfy all claim limitations, including the use of a first and second hinged section to move the grip between an open, perpendicular orientation and a closed, parallel orientation relative to the phone's surface (Compl. ¶30).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (’024 Patent): The central dispute may concern whether the accordion-like structure of the PopSocket-style products meets the claim limitation of a "single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" with sections that "flex and/or fold over and into one-another." The interpretation of "telescoping" in this context, and whether it reads on a structure that folds rather than slides, will likely be a key issue.
  • Technical Questions (’098 Patent): The infringement analysis will raise the question of whether the accused Merkury "Grip'z" products operate using the specific "first hinged section" and "second hinged section" as recited in Claim 1. The evidence must show that the accused device contains two distinct, rotatable connections corresponding to those claimed, rather than a different mechanism for deployment and storage.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’024 Patent

• The Term: "single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" (from Claim 2).
• Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of Claim 2 and appears drafted to describe the accordion-like mechanism of popular phone grips. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the Popsockets, SpinPop, and Otter+Pop products likely hinges entirely on the construction of this phrase.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that the term should be interpreted broadly, as the specification describes the sections as being able to "flex and/or fold over and into one-another" (’024 Patent, col. 9:20-21), which supports reading the claim on a non-rigid, accordion-style structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may point to figures showing more traditional, rigid "telescopic pieces" (e.g., Fig. 20a, element 124) and the use of the word "telescoping" to argue the claim is limited to structures where sections slide over one another, rather than fold. However, the explicit "flexible" and "flex and/or fold" language in Claim 2 itself provides strong counter-evidence to a purely rigid interpretation.

For the ’098 Patent

• The Term: "first hinged section" and "second hinged section" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: These terms define the specific two-part movement mechanism of the invention. Infringement by the "Grip'z" product depends on whether its components can be mapped to this two-hinge structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "hinged section" without defining it narrowly, suggesting it could cover various forms of rotational connection, including living hinges made of flexible material, not just traditional pin hinges (’098 Patent, col. 5:10-14).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes figures that illustrate the hinges as distinct pivot points (e.g., Fig. 12, elements 115, 125). A defendant could argue these embodiments limit the claim scope to structures with discrete, separate hinge components.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents, stating Walmart advertises and provides instructions (e.g., on product packaging and online) that encourage end-users to use the accused products in their intended, infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 31). For the ’024 Patent, the complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products are especially designed or adapted for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint explicitly states that Walmart received notice letters identifying the patents-in-suit and the accused products on three separate occasions prior to the lawsuit: March 25, 2021, October 14, 2021, and October 16, 2021 (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22, 34-35, 40).

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

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the term "single piece conical telescoping flexible tubular structure" in the ’024 Patent be construed to cover the ubiquitous accordion-style mechanism of the accused PopSocket-type products, or is it limited to a more traditional sliding telescopic structure?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of structural equivalence: do the accused "Grip'z" products, as alleged to infringe the ’098 Patent, incorporate the specific "first hinged section" and "second hinged section" architecture required by Claim 1, or do they achieve a similar fold-flat function through a mechanically distinct design?
3. Given the specific allegations of multiple pre-suit notice letters, a central question will be the defendant's state of mind: if infringement is found, did Walmart act recklessly or with deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's patent rights after being notified, which could lead to a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?