DCT

2:25-cv-00461

KT Health v. Heali Medical Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00461, D. Utah, 08/31/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah based on Defendant's sales of products and systematic and continuous business contacts within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s kinesiology tape and anatomical support products infringe a portfolio of eleven U.S. patents, including eight utility patents and three design patents, related to sports medicine tapes and support systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves adhesive, stretch-resistant tapes and pre-cut supports designed to treat conditions like plantar fasciitis and provide anatomical support, a significant market within the sports medicine and physical therapy industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the asserted patents, or any prior licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-04-02 Earliest Priority Date for ’511, ’818, ’398, ’229, ’987, ’953, ’815, and ’894 Patents
2009-11-25 Earliest Priority Date for ’944, ’400, and ’420 Design Patents
2013-04-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,414,511 Issues
2014-08-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,814,818 Issues
2014-09-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,834,398 Issues
2015-03-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,968,229 Issues
2019-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,212,987 Issues
2019-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 10,299,953 Issues
2021-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,096,815 Issues
2021-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,206,894 Issues
2022-04-05 U.S. Design Patent No. D947,944 Issues
2022-08-30 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,011,420 Issues
2023-06-06 U.S. Design Patent No. D988,400 Issues
2025-08-31 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,414,511 - System for Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis (issued April 9, 2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the medical condition of plantar fasciitis, which results from excessive tensile forces on the plantar fascia of the foot. It notes that existing treatments like elastic socks are often "inconvenient and cumbersome," while medical taping is difficult to apply consistently and effectively without professional help (’511 Patent, col. 2:31-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "stretch resistant plantar fascia support system" that is adhesively applied to the sole of the foot to reduce tensile stress (’511 Patent, col. 3:36-38). As depicted in FIG. 3, the system comprises a "foot sole support" shaped to conform to the bottom of the foot, along with optional straps for the arch and heel that provide additional stability. By adhering a stretch-resistant material to the sole, the system acts as an external support that shares the tensile load, thereby reducing stress on the plantar fascia itself (’511 Patent, col. 3:56-65; FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a non-invasive, economical, and easily self-applied treatment for plantar fasciitis that mimicked the functional benefits of professional taping without the associated complexity or inconvenience (’511 Patent, col. 3:36-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶65).
  • Claim 1 describes an orthotic foot support device with the following essential elements:
    • A foot support device comprising a thin, flexible, stretch-resistant sole member made of a single woven fabric layer, shaped to match less than the entire outline of a wearer's sole.
    • An adhesive layer on the sole member for direct adhesion to the skin.
    • The sole member must be "sufficiently stretch-resistant to restrict extension and stretching of an outer skin tissue on the sole of a foot, when adhered thereto."
    • The adhesive layer must have "sufficient adhesion to maintain said stretch-resistant sole member in adhesive engagement" so that tension forces are shared with the plantar fascia.

U.S. Patent No. 8,814,818 - Disposable Two-Part Orthotic Foot Support, Strap System and Method (issued August 26, 2014)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem of treating plantar fasciitis, highlighting the deficiencies of prior art methods like taping, which are described as "cumbersome, inefficient, and ineffective" for self-application (’818 Patent, col. 2:59-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "disposable two-part orthotic foot support strap system" consisting of a separate sole support strap and an arch support strap (’818 Patent, Abstract). These pre-cut components are provided on a release liner, as shown in FIG. 3, which simplifies the application process for the user by eliminating the need to cut tape from a roll. The method involves applying the sole strap first and then wrapping the arch strap over it for additional support (’818 Patent, Figs. 7A-7H).
  • Technical Importance: The two-part, pre-cut system was designed to make an effective, taping-like treatment for foot pain accessible for convenient and consistent self-application by consumers without medical training (’818 Patent, col. 13:5-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 and reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶75).
  • Claim 15 recites a method for treating plantar fasciitis with essential steps including:
    • Providing a disposable two-part orthotic foot support strap system comprising a pre-cut sole support strap and a pre-cut arch support strap, both made of flexible material with an adhesive layer.
    • The flexible material has a tensile strength of at least 25 lb/in-width and a ratio of elongation-to-tensile strength less than 0.9.
    • Adhesively applying the sole support strap to the sole of the user's foot.
    • Adhesively applying the arch support strap transversely over the sole support strap and at least a portion of the sides of the arch.

Multi-Patent Capsule: Design Patents

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent Nos. D947,944 (issued Apr. 5, 2022), D988,400 (issued Jun. 6, 2023), and D1,011,420 (issued Aug. 30, 2022), all titled "ROLL OF PRE-CUT STRIPS OF KINESIOLOGY TAPE."
  • Technology Synopsis: These patents protect the ornamental designs of a roll of kinesiology tape where individual strips are pre-cut but remain attached to a continuous backing paper. The claimed designs consist of the visual appearance of the tape roll and the specific shapes of the pre-cuts as the tape is unrolled.
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents each contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the patent's figures (Compl. ¶¶35, 45, 55).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's "variety of kinesiology tape products that embody the claimed designs" are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶17).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Additional Utility Patents

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,834,398, "System for Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis" (issued Sep. 16, 2014).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system for treating plantar fasciitis that includes a pre-cut anatomical foot support provided on a sheet of stretch-resistant material for a user to remove and apply. It is part of the same family as the ’511 Patent.

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶85).

  • Accused Features: The "Accused Products" are alleged to practice the claims of the asserted utility patents (Compl. ¶31).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,968,229, "Disposable Two-Part Orthotic Foot Support Strap System and Method" (issued Mar. 3, 2015).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of treating foot pain by applying a two-part system comprising a pre-cut sole support strap and a pre-cut arch support strap. It is part of the same family as the ’818 Patent.

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶95).

  • Accused Features: The "Accused Products" are alleged to practice the claims of the asserted utility patents (Compl. ¶31).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,212,987, "Method of Manufacturing an Anatomical Support System" (issued Feb. 26, 2019).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of manufacturing pre-cut anatomical supports by cutting a plurality of elongated supports from a sheet of material that includes a woven micro-fiber support layer, an adhesive layer, and a removable cover layer.

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶105).

  • Accused Features: The "Accused Products" are alleged to be made by a process that practices the claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶31, 105).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,299,953, "Material Including Pre-Cut Anatomical Supports" (issued May 28, 2019).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the material itself, comprising a support layer of woven fabric with a plurality of pre-cut anatomical supports that remain attached to a continuous removable cover layer.

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶115).

  • Accused Features: The "Accused Products" are alleged to be made of a material that practices the claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶31, 115).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,096,815, "Material Including Elongate Strap Support" (issued Aug. 24, 2021).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a material that includes a support layer comprising a woven fiber layer with an elongate strap support, where the material has different stretch properties in different directions (a ratio of elongation to tensile strength less than 0.9 in one direction and greater than 0.9 in a perpendicular direction).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶125).

  • Accused Features: The "Accused Products" are alleged to be made of a material that practices the claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶31, 125).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,206,894, "Anatomical Support Method Using Elongate Strap Support" (issued Dec. 28, 2021).

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of providing anatomical support by providing and applying an elongate strap support made from a woven fabric with specific thickness, tensile strength, and elongation ratio properties.

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 35 is asserted (Compl. ¶135).

  • Accused Features: The use of the "Accused Products" is alleged to practice the method claims of the patent (Compl. ¶¶31, 135).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "a variety of kinesiology tape products that embody the claimed designs of each of the Asserted Design Patents" and "practice the claims of the Asserted Utility Patents" (Compl. ¶¶17, 31). The complaint collectively refers to them as the "Accused Products" but does not name specific product models.
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendant Heali is in the business of selling these kinesiology tape products (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the Accused Products. It alleges infringement through incorporation of claim chart exhibits that were not filed as part of the public complaint document (Compl. ¶¶18, 31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Accused Products directly infringe, induce infringement, and contribute to the infringement of the asserted utility patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶65-68). For specific infringement details, the complaint refers to an "exemplary claim charts" document filed as Exhibit N (Compl. ¶31). As this exhibit was not included with the complaint, the complaint itself does not contain a narrative description of the alleged infringing functionality or map specific features of the Accused Products to the elements of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "stretch-resistant" (from ’511 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's function of providing support and sharing tensile loads with the plantar fascia. The scope of this term will be critical in determining whether the accused products, which are described as "kinesiology tape," possess the required level of resistance to stretching. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either broadly cover many support tapes or be narrowly limited to materials with specific, measurable properties.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frequently uses the qualitative term "substantially stretch resistant material," which may support a construction that is not tied to a single quantitative value (’511 Patent, col. 3:40-41).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a precise, quantitative definition, stating that a suitable material "exhibits less than 15 percent elongation when subjected to a 25 lb tensile load under test conditions specified in ASTM D3759" (’511 Patent, col. 11:7-11). A party could argue this language defines and limits the scope of the term.

  • The Term: "a disposable two-part orthotic foot support strap system" (from ’818 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the overall structure of the claimed method's components. The interpretation of "two-part" and "system" will determine whether the claim covers products sold as two entirely separate items or requires them to be provided together, for example on a single perforated sheet as shown in the patent's figures.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly require the two parts to be physically connected prior to use, which may support an interpretation covering two distinct products sold or used together as a system.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict the "sole support strap" and "arch support strap" as two pre-cut shapes presented together on a single release liner, separated by a perforation (’818 Patent, FIG. 3). This embodiment may be used to argue that "system" implies the components are provided together as a single unit for sale and initial handling.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) based on Defendant's alleged advertising, product descriptions, packaging, and instructions that promote and instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶67, 77). It also alleges contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), stating the Accused Products are especially designed for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶68, 78).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement "has been and continued to be knowing, intentional, and willful" for all asserted patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶39, 49, 59, 69). The pleading asserts that Defendant acted "despite its knowledge" of the patents but does not provide specific facts regarding when or how Defendant acquired this knowledge, such as through a notice letter or prior litigation (e.g., Compl. ¶67).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement and relies entirely on external exhibits for factual support. A threshold question for the litigation will be whether the evidence presented in those exhibits, once produced, provides a plausible, element-by-element mapping of the accused products to the asserted patent claims.
  • A central question of claim construction will likely determine the outcome for several utility patents: how "stretch-resistant" must a material be to infringe? The case may turn on whether the term is given a broad, qualitative meaning or is limited to the specific quantitative standard (less than 15% elongation under a 25 lb load) disclosed in the patent specifications.
  • For the design patents, the key question will be one of visual identity: would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs for rolls of pre-cut tape, be deceived into thinking Defendant's product is Plaintiff's patented design? The analysis will focus on the overall ornamental appearance of the competing products, not their functional aspects.