DCT

6:23-cv-00003

Etto IP LLC v. Reebok Intl Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Etto IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Reebok International Limited (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00003, W.D. Tex., 08/01/2023
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas and conducts substantial business in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and methods for producing products infringe a patent related to computer-controlled systems for manufacturing customized three-dimensional items.
Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated, additive manufacturing systems that use a computer-controlled extruder and a multi-axis movable mold to create unique, custom-designed physical objects.
Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-29	’947 Patent Priority Date
2014-05-13	’947 Patent Issue Date
2023-08-01	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,721,947, "System and method for producing customized items" (Issued May 13, 2014)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a gap in the consumer market between inexpensive, mass-produced goods and very expensive, individually designed "luxury" items, noting that most people desire to express individuality in their home's design but are limited by these options (’947 Patent, col. 1:22-42).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method for producing individually designed items at a low cost (’947 Patent, col. 1:44-48). The system uses a computer interface for creating a design, a control unit, a movable support unit holding a three-dimensional mold, and an extruder that deposits material (e.g., thermoplastic) onto the moving mold. The control unit coordinates the movement of the mold and the extrusion of material to form a custom object in a "single continuous extrusion" (’947 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:49-57). This process is illustrated in the interaction between the control unit (12), extruder (16), and movable support unit (18) holding a mold (30) (’947 Patent, Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: The described technology aims to enable affordable mass customization, allowing consumers to obtain unique products without the high cost typically associated with one-off manufacturing (’947 Patent, col. 1:44-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is the basis for the asserted dependent claims.
Independent Claim 1 requires:
- creating a three dimensional mold;
- creating a customized design pattern, having design parameters;
- fitting the three dimensional mold onto a support unit, the support unit being adjustable in any of a plurality of possible directions, rotatable on multiple axes;
- activating the support unit holding the three dimensional mold, to present each face of the three dimensional mold, in accordance with the design parameters, to an extruder and concurrently activating the extruder to extrude material in accordance with the design parameters and the shape of the mold onto each face of the three dimensional mold; and
- separating the three dimensional mold from the finished designed product.
The complaint generally alleges infringement of claims 1-9, which includes all dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service by name. It broadly accuses Defendant’s "systems, products, and services of producing products comprising creating a three dimensional mold and customized design pattern" (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical functionality or operation of the accused Reebok systems or methods. It alleges that these systems perform the steps of the patented method but provides no description of how they do so (Compl. ¶8). The complaint states that support for the infringement allegations is contained in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B," but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement theory is contained within an external document, Exhibit B, which was not filed with the court and is therefore unavailable for analysis (Compl. ¶9). The complaint’s narrative allegations are conclusory, stating only that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services" that infringe claims 1-9 of the ’947 patent (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, any analysis of infringement disputes is necessarily predictive. The primary points of contention will likely emerge during discovery and focus on the following:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether Reebok’s manufacturing processes, which presumably relate to footwear or apparel, fall within the scope of the patent's claims. For example, a central question may be whether a shoe last or a similar item used in footwear manufacturing constitutes a "three dimensional mold" that is later "separat[ed]... from the finished designed product" as required by claim 1 (’947 Patent, col. 8:43-44). The patent’s examples focus on creating standalone objects like chairs, bowls, and lamps (’947 Patent, Figs. 7A-11B).
- Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will concern whether the accused Reebok systems actually perform the specific steps of claim 1. For instance, the complaint provides no evidence that Reebok's process involves a "support unit... rotatable on multiple axes" that presents "each face of the three dimensional mold" to an extruder for material application (’947 Patent, col. 8:36-42). Evidence of this coordinated, multi-axis motion and material extrusion will be a central element of Plaintiff's case.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "three dimensional mold"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis. The case may turn on whether the apparatus used in Defendant's accused process qualifies as a "mold" under the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if the patent can read on processes outside its core examples of furniture and housewares.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent claim 8 describes the mold as potentially being formed from a diverse group of materials, including "polyurethane foam, cardboard, silicone coating on a heat resistant fabric, an inflatable or expandable heat resistant surface" (’947 Patent, col. 9:13-17). This variety could support a broad construction that is not limited to traditional, rigid molds.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires "separating the three dimensional mold from the finished designed product" (’947 Patent, col. 8:43-44). Furthermore, the specification repeatedly describes a process where the mold is a temporary form that is removed, such as by extracting a rod or dissolving the mold material, to leave behind a hollow, finished product (’947 Patent, col. 6:4-8, col. 6:49-52). This could support a narrower construction limited to removable, non-permanent forms.
The Term: "activating the support unit ... to present each face of the three dimensional mold ... and concurrently activating the extruder to extrude material ... onto each face"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core manufacturing action. Its construction will be critical for determining whether Defendant's accused process, once detailed, performs the claimed method. The dispute will likely focus on the required degree of movement ("rotatable on multiple axes") and the extent of material application ("onto each face").
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the material being "allowed to drip (or dribble) on to a mold," which could suggest that the term "extrude" is not limited to a highly precise, nozzle-driven process (’947 Patent, col. 5:29-31).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language requires activating the support unit "to present each face" and extruding "onto each face" (’947 Patent, col. 8:38-42). This suggests a comprehensive process that covers the entire mold surface, rather than simply adding a feature to one part of an object. The exemplary embodiments, such as the "lace chair" formed from a web of extruded material, appear to show the creation of an entire object through this process, not mere surface decoration (’947 Patent, Fig. 10).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not assert separate counts for indirect or contributory infringement.
Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a prayer for a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl., Prayer for Relief e). However, the body of the complaint does not allege any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or deliberate copying.

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "three dimensional mold", which is described in the patent in the context of creating standalone objects like furniture and lighting, be construed to cover the manufacturing apparatus used by Reebok for what is presumably footwear or apparel? The viability of the infringement claim may depend heavily on the breadth afforded to this central term.
A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: Once the accused Reebok process is identified in discovery, Plaintiff must provide evidence that it practices each step of the asserted claims. The case will likely hinge on whether Reebok's system uses a multi-axis, rotating support unit to present "each face" of a form to an extruder for material application, a technically specific process for which the complaint currently provides no factual support.