DCT

1:18-cv-00107

Fit Four v. Zencom Global SRL

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00107, D. Utah, 08/30/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has conducted business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s workout gloves infringe a patent related to a glove design featuring an integrated wrist wrap and a distinct opening on the back of the hand.
  • Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of fitness apparel, specifically gloves designed to provide hand protection and wrist support during exercise while maximizing comfort and flexibility.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on December 14, 2017, providing notice of the patent-in-suit and its infringement allegations prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-02-26 '123 Patent Priority Date
2015-06-30 '123 Patent Issue Date
2017-12-14 Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2018-08-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,067,123 - "WORKOUT GLOVE HAVING A WRIST WRAP,"

  • Issued: June 30, 2015
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 17; dependent claims 2-9, 12-15, and 18-20. (Compl. ¶11)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for workout gloves that provide adequate protection against blisters and calluses without excessively covering the hand, which can lead to discomfort. (’123 Patent, col. 2:28-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a workout glove with a hand portion and an integrated wrist wrap. The hand portion features open-ended finger sheaths and an exposed thumb opening. (’123 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is a large opening on the back of the hand, which is formed in the space between the proximal edge of the glove's back side (located near the knuckles) and the separately attached wrist wrap. (’123 Patent, col. 3:19-28; Fig. 2). This construction aims to protect the palm and knuckles while leaving the majority of the back of the hand uncovered to improve comfort and wearability. (’123 Patent, col. 3:38-43).
  • Technical Importance: This design attempts to resolve the tension between protection and comfort by selectively covering only the high-friction areas of the hand while maximizing ventilation and flexibility elsewhere. (’123 Patent, col. 2:28-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
    • A hand portion and a wrist wrap.
    • The wrist wrap is attached along a "front-side proximal edge" of the hand portion.
    • The hand portion includes open-ended finger sheaths and a thumb opening.
    • The hand portion forms an "opening on the back side of the wearer's hand," which is located between a "back-side proximal edge" of the hand portion and the wrist wrap.
  • Independent Claim 10, Essential Elements:
    • A hand portion with a "front-side proximal edge," a thumb opening, and open-ended finger sheaths.
    • A wrist wrap attached along the "front-side proximal edge."
    • The hand portion includes a "back-side proximal edge" positioned "at or near the wearer's knuckles."
    • An opening is formed between this "back-side proximal edge" and the wrist wrap.
  • Independent Claim 17, Essential Elements:
    • A hand portion with four open-ended sheaths.
    • The hand portion includes a "strip" that extends from a "back-side proximal edge" around the thumb to a "front-side proximal edge," defining a thumb opening.
    • A wrist wrap is attached along the "front-side proximal edge."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Mava Pro Gloves" and "Mava Ultimate Workout Gloves." (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as workout gloves sold in the United States through online channels, including Amazon.com and Mavasports.com. (Compl. ¶10). It alleges these products "embody the invention claimed in the '123 patent." (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide further technical details or descriptions of the accused products' specific construction or operation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused Mava gloves infringe claims 1–10, 12–15, and 17–20 of the ’123 patent. (Compl. ¶11). The specific basis for this allegation is contained within claim charts referenced as Exhibits B and C, which were not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint’s narrative theory is that Mava’s products "embody the invention claimed in the ’123 patent" and that Mava’s activities constitute direct, contributory, and induced infringement. (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the claims and the general nature of the allegations, the dispute may focus on several key questions.

  • Structural Questions: Does the construction of the accused gloves feature a "back-side proximal edge" that is distinct from the wrist wrap, thereby forming the claimed "opening on the back side of the wearer's hand"? The case may turn on whether the accused products are built with this specific multi-part architecture or have a more integrated, single-piece design.
  • Scope Questions: Can the term "at or near the wearer's knuckles" as recited in Claim 10 be interpreted to read on the specific location of the back edge of the accused gloves? The resolution of this relative term will be critical to the infringement analysis.
  • Technical Questions: Does the portion of the accused gloves surrounding the thumb constitute a "strip that extends from the back-side proximal edge around the wearer's thumb to the front-side proximal edge," as required by Claim 17, or is it constructed in a different manner?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "opening on the back side of the wearer's hand... formed between a back-side proximal edge on the back side of the hand portion and the wrist wrap" (from Claim 1).

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the central structural feature of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether any gap on the back of the accused glove is formed by the specific interaction of the claimed "back-side proximal edge" and the "wrist wrap."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the claim language does not require the opening to be of a particular size or shape, only that it be "formed between" the two specified components. (’123 Patent, col. 4:6-10).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "back-side proximal edge" as being "positioned near the wearer's knuckles," which leaves a "majority of the back side of the hand uncovered." (’123 Patent, col. 3:21-25). This, along with Figure 2, could support an interpretation that the "opening" must be a substantial, intentionally-designed feature that exposes a large portion of the back of the hand, rather than an incidental gap.

  • The Term: "at or near the wearer's knuckles" (from Claim 10).

    • Context and Importance: This relative term is likely to be a key point of dispute as it defines the required position of the hand portion's back edge. The infringement determination for Claim 10 will hinge on the scope given to "at or near."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific numerical distance for "near," which could support an argument that the term is one of general proximity and not limited to a precise location.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly equates this location with the "metacarpophalangeal joints." (’123 Patent, col. 3:21-23). An opposing party could argue this specific anatomical reference limits the term "at or near" to the immediate vicinity of the knuckles themselves.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of contributory and induced infringement. (Compl. ¶16). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent, such as referencing defendant’s advertising or user instructions that would encourage infringing acts.
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the word "willful," it alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant on December 14, 2017, identifying the '123 patent and the accused products. (Compl. ¶12). This allegation of pre-suit notice establishes a date of alleged knowledge that could be used to support a claim for enhanced damages for any post-notice infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the accused gloves possess the specific architecture recited in the claims, particularly a "back-side proximal edge" located "at or near the knuckles" that is structurally distinct from the "wrist wrap," such that the two components form the claimed "opening"? The case may turn on a comparison of the products' physical construction against this key limitation.
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the relative term "at or near," which is used to define the position of a critical component of the glove? The outcome of this construction could determine whether Claim 10 reads on the accused products.
  • Finally, an early evidentiary question will be one of sufficiency: As the complaint's infringement theory is contained entirely within unattached exhibits, a central question will be what specific evidence Plaintiff proffers to show that the accused gloves meet each element of the asserted claims, particularly the precise formation of the back-of-hand opening and the structure of the thumb portion.