DCT
2:23-cv-00595
SherryWear LLC v. Smooth Landing Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SherryWear, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Smooth Landing, Inc. dba Oiselle aka Oiselle Running (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00595, W.D. Wash., 04/19/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendant is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in the state, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business via a "Flagship" retail store in Seattle.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sports bras with integrated storage pockets infringe four patents related to pocket systems on the back and sides of bras.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the athletic apparel market, specifically concerning garments like sports bras that incorporate pockets for carrying personal items such as smartphones and keys during physical activity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with a notice letter, including detailed claim charts, on March 7, 2023. This alleged pre-suit notice forms the basis of the willfulness allegations. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-04-07 | Earliest Priority Date for '510, '800, '016, and '878 Patents |
| 2016-03-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,289,016 Issued |
| 2017-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,723,878 Issued |
| 2019-04-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,244,800 Issued |
| 2020-12-22 | U.S. Patent No. 10,869,510 Issued |
| 2023-03-07 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-04-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,869,510 - Bra Pocket System
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,869,510, Bra Pocket System, issued December 22, 2020. (Compl. ¶8).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for a garment that allows a user to carry items, such as a "hand-held electronic device," in a "safe, convenient and economical manner" while wearing a bra. (’510 Patent, col. 1:7-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a pocket bra system featuring a pocket on the back of the garment. The claims specify a "back pocket formed entirely of stretchable fabric" located at a "central area" where the shoulder straps join, with an opening that is "biased in a closed position at rest" to secure its contents. (’510 Patent, col. 7:1-9). This configuration is illustrated in Figure 13 of the patent. (’510 Patent, Fig. 13).
- Technical Importance: This design offers athletes a means to carry personal items securely without requiring auxiliary accessories like belts or armbands. (’510 Patent, col. 2:41-53).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A strap assembly with a chest strap and shoulder straps that join at a "central area" on the wearer's back.
- A bra portion with left and right cups attached to the strap assembly.
- A "back pocket" made "entirely of stretchable fabric" positioned at the "central area", with an opening that is "biased in a closed position at rest".
- The complaint asserts the right to pursue dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11. (Compl. ¶¶32, 33).
U.S. Patent No. 10,244,800 - Bra Pocket System
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,244,800, Bra Pocket System, issued April 2, 2019. (Compl. ¶9).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As with its family members, this patent addresses the need for convenient and secure storage for personal items integrated into a bra. (’800 Patent, col. 1:7-12).
- The Patented Solution: The ’800 Patent claims a pocket bra assembly that includes a "back pocket formed entirely of stretchable fabric" located on the back portion of either the chest or shoulder straps. (’800 Patent, col. 7:3-6). A key claimed feature is that the pocket's opening is "biased in a closed position at rest," and the claim requires an "item positioned within the back pocket" for infringement to occur. (’800 Patent, col. 7:6-9).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a functional alternative to carrying items in hands or separate holders during exercise, improving convenience and security. (’800 Patent, col. 2:41-53).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶19).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A strap assembly and bra portion.
- A "back pocket" made "entirely of stretchable fabric" on the back of the chest or shoulder straps.
- The pocket has an opening that is "biased in a closed position at rest".
- An "item positioned within the back pocket".
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10. (Compl. ¶44).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,289,016 - Pocket Bra System
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,289,016, Pocket Bra System, issued March 22, 2016. (Compl. ¶10).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the same general problem of integrated storage in athletic bras. (’016 Patent, col. 1:7-12). The claimed solution focuses on pockets located on the side of the bra, specifically a "side patch" on the chest strap that forms a pocket and, critically, "extends onto the adjacent cup." (’016 Patent, claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4. (Compl. ¶¶20, 22).
- Accused Features: The side pockets of the "Pockito Bra" and "Tangent Bra" are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶20).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,723,878 - Pocket Bra System
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,723,878, Pocket Bra System, issued August 8, 2017. (Compl. ¶11).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent also pertains to integrated bra pockets for carrying personal items. (’878 Patent, col. 1:7-12). Its claims are directed to a bra assembly with a "side patch on one of an inside or outside surface of the chest strap" that forms a pocket with an "upper opening capable of repeated receiving and removal of an item." (’878 Patent, claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 2 and 14. (Compl. ¶¶20, 22, 24).
- Accused Features: The side pockets of the "Pockito Bra" and "Tangent Bra," as well as a front pocket on the "Pockito Bra," are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶¶20, 24).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are four models of sports bras sold by Defendant Oiselle: the "Flyout Bra," "Flyout Zip Bra," "Tangent Bra," and "Pockito Bra." (Compl. ¶1).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges these products are sports bras that incorporate storage pockets. (Compl. ¶16).
- The "Flyout Bra" and "Flyout Zip Bra" are alleged to feature pockets on the back of the garment. (Compl. ¶¶17-19). Marketing materials for the 'Flyout Bra' include a webpage with an image of a person placing a phone into a pocket located on the upper back of the bra. (Compl. ¶18, Ex. 6).
- The "Tangent Bra" and "Pockito Bra" are alleged to feature pockets on the sides of the garment. (Compl. ¶¶20-22). The "Pockito Bra" is further alleged to have a front pocket formed by a "front central patch." (Compl. ¶24). Marketing materials feature images of a user inserting an object into the side pockets of these bras. (Compl. ¶21, Ex. 8, 9).
- Defendant is alleged to market and sell the products directly to consumers online and through a "Flagship" retail store in Seattle, as well as through resellers. (Compl. ¶¶6, 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’510 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a strap assembly including a chest strap and shoulder straps the strap assembly joining the chest strap and shoulder straps at a central area adapted to be positioned on a back of a wearer when worn | The accused Flyout Bra and Flyout Zip Bra are sports bras with chest and shoulder strap assemblies. The complaint alleges the patents relate to pockets on the back of bras. | ¶¶8, 16 | col. 3:50-58 |
| a bra portion comprising left and right cups, each cup being an area to receive a breast of the wearer, the strap assembly attached to the bra portion | The accused bras feature left and right cups supported by the strap assemblies. | ¶16 | col. 3:59-62 |
| a back pocket formed entirely of stretchable fabric positioned on the central area, the back pocket having an opening that is biased in a closed position at rest | The accused Flyout bras are alleged to have back pockets that match this element. | ¶¶17-19 | col. 7:5-9 |
’800 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a strap assembly including a chest strap and shoulder straps...a bra portion... | The accused Flyout bras are sports bras with standard cup and strap assemblies. | ¶16 | col. 3:50-62 |
| a back pocket formed entirely of stretchable fabric positioned on the back portion of at least one of the chest strap and shoulder straps, the back pocket having an opening formed that is biased in a closed position at rest, providing access to a pocket interior | The accused Flyout bras allegedly have a back pocket that meets these features. | ¶¶17-19 | col. 7:3-7 |
| an item positioned within the back pocket | Infringement is alleged to occur when an item is inserted into the back pocket, an action depicted in Defendant's marketing materials. | ¶19 | col. 7:8-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the accused pockets are constructed and function as claimed. The complaint alleges the pockets are "biased in a closed position at rest," but provides no technical detail on how this is achieved in the accused products. The defense may challenge whether the inherent elasticity of a fabric slit, without more, satisfies this functional limitation.
- Scope Questions: For the ’510 Patent, a dispute may arise over the term "central area". The analysis will question whether the accused pockets are located at the specific position where shoulder straps join, as the claim requires. For the side-pocket patents, a similar question exists regarding whether the accused pockets "extend onto the adjacent cup" as required by claim 1 of the ’016 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "biased in a closed position at rest"
Context and Importance: This functional limitation, present in the independent claims of both the ’510 and ’800 patents, is critical to defining the required behavior of the pocket opening. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused pocket openings possess a self-closing characteristic, and what specific structure or property is required to achieve it.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that an "elastic band is adapted to return the slit to a closed orientation," which could support an argument that any structure or material property achieving this result falls within the claim scope. (’800 Patent, col. 4:23-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description of a specific "elastic band" and "piping" that facilitates the opening and closing could support an argument that the claim requires more than just the natural tendency of a slit in stretchable fabric to remain somewhat closed. (’800 Patent, col. 2:37-40, col. 4:23-26).
The Term: "central area"
Context and Importance: This locational term in claim 1 of the ’510 Patent defines where the back pocket must be positioned. Its construction is important because it distinguishes the ’510 Patent from other patents in the family (like the ’800 Patent) that claim a back pocket more broadly.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term refers generally to the upper-middle back of the garment where shoulder straps converge, as depicted in Figure 13. (’510 Patent, Fig. 13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "central area" as where "the back portion of each of the shoulder straps join together." (’800 Patent, col. 7:16-18). Defendant may argue this requires a more precise location than what is found on the accused products.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all four patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s marketing, user instructions, and the "inherent designs" of the products, which allegedly encourage customers to use the pockets in an infringing manner, such as by placing an item inside. (Compl. ¶¶37, 49, 63, 74).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. This knowledge is purportedly established by a notice letter with detailed claim charts sent on March 7, 2023, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond while continuing its accused activities. (Compl. ¶¶26-29, 34-35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional performance: Do the pocket openings on the accused bras operate as claimed? The case may turn on whether the accused products possess a mechanism or property that creates a bias toward a closed position at rest, and whether the evidence supports that this is equivalent to the function described in the patents.
- A second central question will be one of locational scope: Can the term "central area" in the ’510 Patent be construed to read on the specific placement of the back pocket on the accused "Flyout" bras? Similarly, for the side-pocket patents, does the accused pocket structure "extend onto the adjacent cup" as claimed in the ’016 Patent? The outcome will depend heavily on claim construction.
- Finally, a key evidentiary question will concern use-based infringement: For claims that require an item to be placed in a pocket (e.g., ’800 Patent, claim 1), what proof will Plaintiff offer to establish direct infringement by the Defendant, separate from the infringement by end-users? This will likely focus on Defendant's own actions during marketing, product photography, or quality testing.