IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D. Fla.: Point Blank quick release protective vests do not infringe ‘pull cord’ patents, (Apr 21, 2023)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The court found no literal infringement of the patents because the accused protective vests do not have a “pull cord” feature described in the patent claims.

In a patent infringement case involving patents owned by IQRIS Technologies LLC claiming a “pull cord” feature for vests and other clothing, the federal district court in Miami, Florida, has found that no infringement by protective vests manufactured by Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. The court found no literal infringement of the asserted patents because the accused protective vests used for body armor do not have a “pull cord” feature described in the patent claims. The court also concluded that the doctrine of equivalents does not permit the patent owner to expand the patents’ “pull cord” limitation to include the systems in the accused products (IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., April 19, 2023, Bloom, B.).

IQRIS Technologies owns two patents featuring a “pull cord” with clothing: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,256,020 and 7,814,567. Both patents relate to a protective garment having a front portion, a rear portion, and a quick release system having a plurality of connectors for releasably attaching the front portion to the rear portion, and a pull cord. IQRIS filed suit against Point Blank and National Molding, LLC, alleging patent infringement by Point Blank’s protective vests and body armor that incorporate National Molding’s Quad Release and Evil Twin quick-release systems. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the accused products do not infringe the patents.

Literal infringement. The court found no literal infringement of the asserted patents because the accused products do not have a “pull cord” feature in the patent claims. A finding of literal infringement requires the patent owner to establish that every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in an accused product, exactly. Both patents describe a “pull cord” that actuates the quick release system by disengaging the “releasable hook or the releasable fastener. For literal infringement to occur, the accused products must contain a pull cord, or a cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable hook. To literally infringe, an infringing product must have every element that is recited in the patents.

IQRIS argued that the cables or the wires within the accused products constitute a “pull cord.” However, both of those components are entirely internal within the protective vest. The cable and wires cannot be directly pulled by a user without ripping into the vest. There is no way for the wearer to “directly” pull the wires, let alone touch them, because they are encased within the cables, which are fully interior to the vest. The court rejected the argument asserted by IQRIS to analogize this case to a lightbulb that is activated by pulling on a pull cord. Here, the court found the accused products have an entirely separate mechanism—the “trigger manifold”—that replaces the pull cord altogether. Because the accused products do not have a pull cord, the court found not literal infringement.

Doctrine of equivalents. Next, the court found no infringement of the patents under the doctrine of equivalents. For the doctrine of equivalents to apply, there must be equivalence between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patent invention. The court ruled the Quad Release trigger system is not functionally equivalent to the pull cord. An expert for IQRIS asserted that the trigger system with the Quad Release achieves the same function, in the same way as the pull cord. The court found that this is a conclusory legal assertion that does not, on its own, create a genuine issue of material fact.

In examining prior art, other quick release mechanisms existed at the time the patent applications were filed. A skilled patent drafter would foresee the limiting potential of the pull cord limitation. The doctrine of equivalents does not permit the patent owner to expand the patents’ “pull cord” limitation to include the systems in the accused products. Therefore, the court granted the motion for summary judgment and found no infringement.

The Case is No. 0:21-cv-61976-BB.

Attorneys: Jerold Ira Schneider (Schneider IP Law) for IQRIS Technologies LLC. Emily J. Florczak (Hodgson Russ LLP) for Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.

Companies: IQRIS Technologies LLC; Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.; National Molding, LLC

Cases: Patent FloridaNews