Form Athletica v. Guangli

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Form Athletica Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Guangli, Inc. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00630, D. Utah, 07/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant's alleged acts of infringement within the district and its status as a foreign entity not residing in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Holoswim line of smart swimming goggles infringes a patent related to heads-up display (HUD) systems for swimmers.
• Technical Context: The technology involves integrating optical and electronic modules into swimming goggles to provide swimmers with real-time performance data directly in their field of view.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter on November 28, 2023, providing notice of the patent-in-suit and including a claim chart alleging infringement by Defendant's products. Subsequent communications between the parties reportedly failed to resolve the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-04-21	’219 Patent Priority Date
2020-06-30	’219 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-28	Plaintiff sent pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2025-07-31	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,698,219 - "Heads Up Display Systems for Swimming Goggles"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,698,219, "Heads Up Display Systems for Swimming Goggles," issued June 30, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for improved systems to provide swimmers with real-time information, as they are "otherwise isolated from information during activity" (’219 Patent, col. 2:40-42; col. 1:31-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a heads-up display (HUD) system for swimming goggles. It comprises an electronics module with a display and sensors in a watertight housing, and an optics module integrated into one of the goggle eye cups (’219 Patent, Abstract). The optics module uses a specific combination of a collimating optic, a waveguide, and a corrective optic to receive an image from the display and redirect it into the swimmer's eye, providing data such as lap count and pace (’219 Patent, col. 10:1-65; col. 2:42-45).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows swimmers to receive continuous, near-eye performance feedback without interrupting their activity, addressing a key limitation in aquatic sports training (’219 Patent, col. 2:37-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13, as well as several dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the core elements of the system:
  • An electronics module with a processor, sensors, and a display in a watertight housing to generate an image with swimming performance data.
  • An optics module integrated into a goggle eye cup.
  • This optics module includes a specific three-part optical train: (1) a collimating optic with two freeform surfaces; (2) a waveguide with a third freeform surface and a beam splitter; and (3) a corrective optic with a conforming beam splitter surface.
  • The optics module is coupled to the electronics module to receive and redirect the image to the user's eye.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Defendant's "Holoswim goggles, its Holoswim 2s goggles, and its Holoswim 2 Pro goggles" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are products that embody the inventions of the ’219 Patent, but does not provide specific details on their technical operation or optical design (Compl. ¶18). The infringement allegations suggest the products are heads-up display systems for swimmers that provide performance data, positioning them in the same market segment as the technology described in the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart provided to the Defendant pre-suit (Exhibit B), but this exhibit is not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶14). The pleading itself does not contain a claim chart or detailed element-by-element infringement allegations. The complaint broadly alleges that the Accused Products "satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the '219 Patent" (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific infringement contentions in the complaint, the central dispute will likely focus on the precise technical implementation of the Accused Products' optical systems.
  • Structural Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the optical system in the Holoswim goggles contains the specific, multi-element structure recited in claim 1. The claim requires a distinct collimating optic, waveguide, and corrective optic, each with particular surface properties (e.g., "freeform surface," "beam splitter surface"). The case may turn on evidence of whether the accused products use this exact structure or achieve a similar heads-up display function through a different, potentially non-infringing, optical design.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶12). This suggests a potential dispute over whether components in the accused products that differ from the claim language nonetheless perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "optics module integrated into one of the first and second eye cups" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: The definition of "integrated into" is critical for determining the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification discloses multiple embodiments, including a system that is "removably mounted" (Fig. 1; ’219 Patent, col. 2:59-62) and another where the optics module is more permanently built into the eye cup structure (Fig. 4; ’219 Patent, col. 9:28-32). The infringement analysis may depend on whether the term is construed to cover both removable and permanently affixed systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a "removably mounted" HUD system (100) that is secured to a standard goggle eye cup via a resilient loop (’219 Patent, col. 2:62-67). Parties arguing for a broader construction may point to this embodiment as evidence that "integrated into" does not require permanent, inseparable construction.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes an embodiment where the eye cup (402) has a dedicated mounting portion (412) to engage the electronics module, and the optical components (430) are held captive within the eye cup structure itself (’219 Patent, col. 9:43-48; col. 10:1-4). Parties arguing for a narrower construction may cite this embodiment to suggest "integrated into" implies a more unified and purpose-built structure, rather than a simple removable attachment.

• The Term: "freeform surface" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This technical term appears multiple times in claim 1 to describe surfaces on the collimating optic and the waveguide. Its construction is central to the infringement analysis of the optical train. The dispute will likely concern whether the optical surfaces in the accused products meet this specific technical definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "freeform surface." A party might argue for a broad interpretation that covers any non-planar or non-spherical optical surface designed to correct for aberrations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that utilizing "freeform surfaces" allows the "total number of lenses required to form an image can be reduced" and helps to reduce aberrations like "field curvature, distortion, and axial and lateral color aberrations" (’219 Patent, col. 11:4-14). A party may argue this implies a specific type of advanced, mathematically complex surface distinct from simpler aspheric or cylindrical surfaces, and that the term should be limited to surfaces that achieve these stated advantages.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant knowingly and intentionally encouraged direct infringement by "customers and end-users" (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges the accused products "are not staple articles nor commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of infringement. The complaint asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the ’219 Patent and its infringement "at least as of its receipt of Form's November 28, 2023 letter," which included a claim chart (Compl. ¶19). The complaint also alleges willful blindness (Compl. ¶22) and seeks enhanced damages (Compl. p. 6, ¶(d)).

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

1. A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the optical system within the accused Holoswim goggles contain the specific three-part architecture (collimating optic, waveguide, corrective optic) with the claimed "freeform surfaces," or does it employ a materially different design to project an image? The absence of a detailed claim chart in the complaint leaves this as a central question to be resolved through discovery.

2. The case will also turn on a key question of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "integrated into"? The patent's disclosure of both removable and built-in embodiments raises the question of whether the claims are broad enough to read on the specific method of attachment used in the accused products.