DCT
2:25-cv-01155
Chums Inc v. Carson Optical
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Chums, Inc. (Utah)
- Defendant: Carson Optical, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stoel Rives LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01155, D. Utah, 12/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Chums alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because Defendant Carson Optical directed threats of patent infringement into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from the court that its "SportFloat Retainers" and "SportFloat Wrist Straps" do not infringe two design patents owned by the Defendant.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental designs of personal accessories: straps for retaining eyewear and straps for wearing on a wrist.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this lawsuit was filed in response to communications from the Defendant, culminating in a December 10, 2025 demand letter that alleged infringement and demanded Plaintiff cease selling the accused products. This letter established the "actual controversy" required for the court to hear a declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-01-11 | ’815 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-07-23 | ’136 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-10-13 | ’815 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-12-14 | ’136 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10 | Defendant's president contacts Plaintiff alleging infringement |
| 2025-12-10 | Plaintiff receives demand letter from Defendant's counsel |
| 2025-12-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D938,136 - "WRIST STRAP"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D938,136, "WRIST STRAP," issued December 14, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not describe a technical problem, but rather provides a new, original, and ornamental design for a wrist strap, seeking to create a distinct aesthetic appearance ('136 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a wrist strap as depicted in its figures ('136 Patent, Figs. 1-5). The design is characterized by a bulbous, teardrop-shaped loop. A key feature is the stitching shown in longer-dashed broken lines, which the patent specification explicitly states is part of the claimed design ('136 Patent, Description). The smaller, trapezoidal attachment piece at the bottom of the loop is shown in shorter-dashed broken lines and is described as "environmental structure" that forms "no part of the claimed design" ('136 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: In the market for consumer accessories, a unique ornamental design can serve as a key product differentiator and source of brand identity.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for a wrist strap, as shown and described" ('136 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of this design claim are:
- A bulbous, teardrop-shaped main body forming a continuous loop.
- Prominent stitching that follows the perimeter along both the inner and outer edges of the loop.
- The overall proportions and surface contours as depicted in the patent figures.
U.S. Design Patent No. D898,815 - "EYEWEAR RETAINER"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D898,815, "EYEWEAR RETAINER," issued October 13, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent provides a new, original, and ornamental design for an eyewear retainer, distinct from prior designs ('815 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The claimed design consists of a simple, continuous, strap-like body ('815 Patent, Fig. 1). Key visual characteristics include its relatively flat profile and a gentle taper from the wider midpoint to the narrower ends. The patent uses dotted lines to illustrate the ends of the retainer where they would attach to eyewear, indicating these attachment features "are environmental only and form no part of the claimed design" ('815 Patent, Description). The claim, therefore, covers the ornamental appearance of the strap itself, independent of the specific attachment mechanism.
- Technical Importance: The design offers a minimalist aesthetic for an eyewear retainer, focusing on the clean lines of the strap component.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for an eyewear retainer, as shown and described" ('815 Patent, Claim).
- The essential visual elements of this design claim are:
- A continuous, unitary strap body.
- A generally flat profile that tapers from the center toward the ends.
- The specific proportions and smooth surface appearance shown in the figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Chums' SportFloat Retainers" as infringing the ’815 Patent and "Chums' SportFloat Wrist Straps" as infringing the ’136 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not provide descriptions, images, or technical details regarding the design or function of the accused Chums products. It alleges only that the Defendant, in a demand letter, accused these specific products of infringement (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement, does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations. It states only that Defendant has accused Plaintiff of infringement (Compl. ¶15, ¶22). Analysis must therefore focus on the likely points of contention in a design patent dispute. The legal standard for infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design.
D'136 Patent (Wrist Strap) - Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the overall visual impression of the Chums SportFloat Wrist Strap is substantially the same as the patented design. A central question may be the importance of the claimed stitching; if the accused product lacks similar prominent stitching, it may support a non-infringement argument. Conversely, if the accused product has a similar bulbous, teardrop shape, it may support an infringement argument.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be the degree of visual similarity between the accused product's shape, proportions, and surface ornamentation and those shown in the ’136 Patent's figures.
D'815 Patent (Eyewear Retainer) - Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’815 Patent will likely disregard the specific means by which the Chums SportFloat Retainer attaches to eyewear, as that element is explicitly disclaimed in the patent ('815 Patent, Description). The comparison will focus solely on the strap portion.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the shape, taper, and profile of the accused retainer's strap are substantially similar to the design claimed in the patent. Minor differences in curvature or width may become focal points of the dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, claim construction does not involve defining textual terms but rather describing the claimed ornamental design in words to guide the infringement analysis.
For the ’136 Patent (Wrist Strap)
- The "Term": The overall visual appearance, including the claimed stitching.
- Context and Importance: The patent's specific description of what is and is not part of the claimed design will be critical. Practitioners may focus on the explicit inclusion of the "longer-dashed broken lines depict[ing] stitching" as "part of the claimed design" ('136 Patent, Description).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the dominant feature is the overall bulbous, teardrop shape, and that minor variations in stitching should not defeat a finding of substantial similarity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the prominent, perimeter-defining stitching is an integral and limiting element of the claimed design, and any design without this specific feature is not substantially similar.
For the ’815 Patent (Eyewear Retainer)
- The "Term": The scope of the claimed design, excluding the disclaimed environmental structure.
- Context and Importance: The primary construction issue will be to properly distinguish the claimed strap from the unclaimed attachment ends. Practitioners may focus on this distinction to argue that any visual differences in the accused product's attachment mechanisms are irrelevant to the infringement inquiry.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the claim covers any similarly proportioned, tapered, flat eyewear strap, regardless of minor contour differences.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that the specific rate of taper and the precise proportions shown in Figures 1-4 are limiting features of the design, and only straps with those exact characteristics are covered.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general denial that Chums has engaged in any indirect or induced infringement of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶16, ¶23). No specific facts related to this issue are presented.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain any allegations regarding willfulness. As the plaintiff is the accused infringer, this issue would typically be raised by the defendant patent-holder in a counterclaim, which has not yet been filed.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action will center on the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the accused products and the two design patents. The central questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of ornamental scope: For the ’136 Patent wrist strap, is the claimed perimeter stitching a dominant visual feature such that its absence or significant alteration in the accused product would lead an ordinary observer to find the designs not substantially similar?
- A second key issue will be the impact of disclaimed elements: For the ’815 Patent eyewear retainer, once the unclaimed attachment features are properly filtered out of the analysis, is the overall visual impression of the accused product's strap substantially the same as the patented design's simple, tapered shape?
- A final procedural question relates to the burden of proof: While Chums, as the plaintiff, has the initial burden to establish jurisdiction for its declaratory judgment claim, the ultimate burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence will rest with the patentee, Carson Optical.