DCT
2:23-cv-00874
Thread Wallets v. Brixley Bags
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Thread Wallets LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: Brixley Bags, LLC (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Workman Nydegger
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00874, D. Utah, 06/06/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the judicial district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cross-body bags infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental design of Plaintiff's own cross-body bag.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer personal accessories market, focusing on the specific aesthetic and ornamental appearance of cross-body bags.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted U.S. Patent No. D1,025,591 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. D995,105. The complaint cites social media commentary as evidence of consumer confusion between the parties' products and includes Plaintiff's timeline of product launch dates, alleging its product predates the Defendant's. This case is an amended complaint, indicating prior filings in the same action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-08-01 | Plaintiff allegedly launched its Crossbody Bag (approximate date) |
| 2020-10-23 | Priority Date for '105 and '591 Patents |
| 2020-11-01 | Defendant allegedly launched pre-orders for its bags (approximate date) |
| 2023-08-15 | '105 Patent Issued |
| 2024-05-07 | '591 Patent Issued |
| 2024-06-06 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D995,105 - "Cross-Body Bag"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D995,105, "Cross-Body Bag," issued August 15, 2023.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '105 patent does not articulate a technical problem; instead, it protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ('105 Patent, Title, Abstract).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a cross-body bag. Key claimed ornamental features shown in the solid lines of the drawings include a vertically oriented, rectangular main body with rounded corners, a horizontal zipper across the upper front face, and a specific configuration of four D-ring strap attachment points on the rear face ('105 Patent, FIG. 1, 4, 5). The dotted lines in the figures, such as for the zipper pull and a square patch on the front, indicate that those elements are not part of the claimed design ('105 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a specific, protectable aesthetic for a cross-body bag, an article of commerce in the competitive personal accessories market (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a cross-body bag, as shown and described." ('105 Patent, Claim).
- The essential elements are the visual characteristics of the bag depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1-7, including:
- The overall shape and proportions of the bag.
- The placement and appearance of the front zipper.
- The specific number, shape, and placement of the D-ring attachment points on the rear.
- The complaint does not reserve the right to assert other claims, as a design patent has only one claim.
U.S. Patent No. D1,025,591 - "Cross-Body Bag"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,025,591, "Cross-Body Bag," issued May 7, 2024.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The '591 patent, like the '105 patent, protects an ornamental design for a cross-body bag and does not identify a technical problem ('591 Patent, Title, Abstract).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the same ornamental design as the '105 patent, from which it is a continuation ('591 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data). It claims the specific visual appearance of the bag as depicted in its figures, which include the rectangular body with rounded corners, the front zipper placement, and the four-D-ring configuration on the rear ('591 Patent, FIG. 1, 4, 5). The description notes that dotted lines represent portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design ('591 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The design contributes a specific aesthetic to the personal accessories marketplace, where visual appearance is a key driver of consumer choice (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The single claim is for "The ornamental design for a cross-body bag, as shown and described." ('591 Patent, Claim).
- The essential elements are the visual characteristics of the bag depicted in the solid lines of Figures 1-7, which are identical to those in the '105 Patent.
- The complaint does not reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s "Brixley Cross-Body Bag" (Compl. ¶4), also referred to by product name "Lagoon Crossbody Sling" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a cross-body bag that Defendant makes, uses, imports, sells, and offers for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶14). The complaint positions the product as a direct competitor that has allegedly "copied the design of Thread's patented cross-body bag" (Compl. ¶4). To illustrate the market context and alleged consumer confusion, the complaint includes screenshots of social media comments where consumers discuss the similarities between the two companies' products (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18). The complaint provides an image of the accused product, which shows a small, vertically oriented bag with a shoulder strap (Compl. ¶4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused design is such as to deceive the observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The complaint presents its allegations through side-by-side photographic comparisons.
D995,105 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from "The ornamental design for a cross-body bag, as shown and described") | Alleged Infringing Functionality (based on Complaint images) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vertically-oriented main body of generally rectangular shape with rounded corners, as shown in FIG. 4. | The accused Brixley bag is alleged to have a main body with a substantially similar vertically-oriented rectangular shape and rounded corners. | ¶14 | '105 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| A single horizontal zipper element positioned across the upper portion of the front face, as shown in FIG. 4. | The accused bag features a single horizontal zipper located in a similar position across the upper portion of its front face. | ¶14 | '105 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| Four D-ring strap attachment points arranged on the rear face, with two at the upper corners and two at the lower corners, as shown in FIG. 5. | The accused bag features four D-ring strap attachment points on its rear face, alleged to be in the same configuration as the patented design. | ¶8 | '105 Patent, FIG. 5 |
D1,025,591 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from "The ornamental design for a cross-body bag, as shown and described") | Alleged Infringing Functionality (based on Complaint images) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vertically-oriented main body of generally rectangular shape with rounded corners, as shown in FIG. 4. | The accused Brixley bag is alleged to have a main body with a substantially similar vertically-oriented rectangular shape and rounded corners. | ¶15 | '591 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| A single horizontal zipper element positioned across the upper portion of the front face, as shown in FIG. 4. | The accused bag features a single horizontal zipper located in a similar position across the upper portion of its front face. | ¶15 | '591 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| Four D-ring strap attachment points arranged on the rear face, with two at the upper corners and two at the lower corners, as shown in FIG. 5. | The accused bag features four D-ring strap attachment points on its rear face, alleged to be in the same configuration as the patented design. | ¶9 | '591 Patent, FIG. 5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be defining the scope of the claimed design in view of the prior art. The analysis will consider whether the combination of a rectangular shape, a front zipper, and D-rings is common in the field, which could narrow the scope of protection to the specific overall visual impression created by the Plaintiff's particular arrangement. The complaint's visual evidence presents a side-by-side view of the accused bag and the patent's front view drawing (Compl. ¶14).
- Technical (Ornamental) Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on the degree of similarity between the designs. While the overall configurations appear similar, the court may need to consider subtle differences. For example, the complaint's image of the accused product shows a vertically oriented branding tag, whereas the patent drawings disclaim any specific logo by using a dotted-line square ('105 Patent, FIG. 4; '591 Patent, FIG. 4). The question is whether such minor differences are sufficient to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived. The complaint includes screenshots of social media posts as evidence that consumers perceive the products as nearly identical (Compl. ¶17).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the scope of the design as a whole, rather than the definition of specific text-based terms. The key issue is what an ordinary observer would perceive as the substance of the claimed design.
- The "Term": The overall "ornamental design for a cross-body bag."
- Context and Importance: The scope of this design is critical. If the scope is broad, it may cover products with minor variations. If it is narrow, small differences in an accused product could be enough to avoid infringement. Practitioners may focus on the scope because the Defendant will likely argue that the asserted patents only cover the exact proportions and features shown, while the Plaintiff will argue they cover the overall aesthetic impression.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Plaintiff may argue that the core of the design is the combination of the bag's general shape, the distinctive horizontal front zipper, and the four-corner D-ring layout on the back ('105 Patent, FIGS. 4-5). They could argue these elements create a singular, memorable visual impression and that minor details are irrelevant to the ordinary observer. The allegation that consumers are already confused supports this view (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Defendant may argue that the patent is limited to the precise visual details shown in the solid lines of the drawings. This could include the exact curvature of the corners, the proportions of the bag, and the specific shape of the fabric tabs holding the D-rings. The patent explicitly disclaims certain features with dotted lines, such as the zipper pull and a front logo patch area ('105 Patent, FIG. 4, Description), which a defendant would argue narrows the design's scope to exclude variations in those areas.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 36). The basis for this allegation is that Defendant allegedly had "actual and/or constructive notice of Thread's patent through prior correspondence and/or Thread's marking" and that its products were "copied from Thread's products" (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 27, 34, 36). Plaintiff explicitly alleges that "Brixley intentionally copied Thread's product" (Compl. ¶16).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of design scope and novelty: The case will likely hinge on the scope of the ornamental design protected by the '105 and '591 patents. The court will have to determine which visual elements constitute the core of the claimed design and whether that overall design is substantially similar to the accused product in a way that would confuse an ordinary observer. This analysis will be heavily influenced by prior art designs for similar bags.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of consumer perception: Plaintiff has proactively introduced evidence of alleged consumer confusion through social media screenshots. A central factual dispute will be whether these comments reflect genuine, widespread deception in the marketplace attributable to the similarity of the designs, or if they represent isolated opinions.
- The outcome may turn on the narrative of copying versus independent creation: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally copied its design, pointing to a timeline where its product launch preceded Defendant's. Proving direct copying would significantly strengthen Plaintiff's case for both infringement and willfulness. Conversely, if Defendant can provide evidence of independent design, it would counter the willfulness allegation and support an argument that any similarities are coincidental or based on common functional or stylistic trends.