Jabaa, LLC v. Caleres, Inc.

On August 30, 2021, Jabba, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Jabba”), represented by Cortney S. Alexander of Kent & Risley LLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Caleres, Inc. (“Defendant” or “GM”), seeking an accounting of damages along with compensatory damages, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for the alleged infringement of the ’637 Patent owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas with Rodney Gilstrap presiding.

Plaintiff filed the complaint for the alleged infringement of the U.S. Patent No. 7,480,637 (’637 Patent”) owned by Plaintiff.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported products that incorporate one or more of the inventions claimed in the ʼ637 Patent.”

Plaintiff further alleged that, “Defendant has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ʼ637 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing direct infringement by other persons, including customers and end users, by encouraging and instructing their customers to use the Famous Footwear app in a manner understood and intended to infringe the ʼ637 patent. For example, Defendant instructs its customers to utilize the Famous Footwear app in an infringing manner, including encouraging customers to pay for a purchase using the Google Pay link found in Defendant’s app and utilizing fingerprint authentication.”

Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant also has in the past and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’637 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally contributing to an underlying direct infringement by other persons, such as Defendant’s patrons, customers, and end users, by offering and providing Defendant’s Famous Footwear app for download without authority or license from Plaintiff and in a manner understood and intended to infringe the ’637 Patent. For example, Defendant knows that the fingerprint-authentication technique provided in Defendant’s app in connection with Google Pay is both patented and infringing, is not a staple article, and has no substantial non-infringing use.”

There are two claims for relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim deals with the direct infringement of the ʼ637 Patent by the Defendant. The second claim deals with the Indirect Infringement of the ʼ637 Patent.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested the court to pass a declaration that Defendant has infringed the ʼ637 Patent and an order of injunction against Defendant from further infringement of the ʼ637 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. Plaintiff further requested the court to award accounting and damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the Defendant’s acts of infringement, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 or any other relief that the court deems just and proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.