Jibbitz, Inc. v. Shoe Charms LLC

On January 12, 2022, Jibbitz, LLC ( “Jibbitz” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Bindu Ann George Palapura, Brandon Ryan Harper and David Ellis Moore of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Shoe Charms LLC (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief, damages, reasonable royalty costs and interest, among other relief, for the alleged infringement of United States Patents owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware.

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,698,836 (“’836 Patent”), 8,122,519 (“’519 Patent”), and 8,782,814 (“’814 Patent”) (collectively “the Jibbitz Patents”) owned by Plaintiff.

In the complaint Plaintiff alleged that, “The kiosk marketing displays of the Accused Charms integrated with molded shoes are acts of infringing “uses” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) that directly infringe each Jibbitz Patent. Jibbitz is also informed and believes that Shoe Charms LLC demonstrates the Accused Charms during the sales process by demonstrating how the Accused Charms can be integrated within the holes of molded shoes. These acts of demonstration also amount to infringing “uses” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) that directly infringe the Jibbitz Patents.”

Plaintiff further alleged that, “Shoe Charms LLC has also actively induced customers to infringe the Jibbitz Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). In particular, Shoe Charms LLC uses displays of Accused Charms integrated with molded shoes, as seen in the photographs above, with the express purpose of encouraging customers to purchase and integrate the Accused Charms with molded shoes to directly infringe the Jibbitz Patents. In addition, Shoe Charms LLC’s paid employees provide verbal and physical instructions to customers, instructing them how to integrate the Accused Charms with molded shoes. These intentional acts induce direct infringement by customers.”

Plaintiff also alleged that, “Shoe Charms LLC has also committed acts of contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). The Accused Charms are especially made or adapted so that customers integrate them with shoes in a manner that infringes the Jibbitz Patents. The Accused Charms are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use because the Accused Charms have unique features made for integration with molded shoes and wearable items. They have no other known commercial purposes or value. As explained above, Shoe Charms LLC has also offered the Accused Charms with knowledge or reckless disregard that customers will use them to infringe the Jibbitz Patents.”

Similar allegations have been made by Plaintiff with respect to the other Asserted Patents owned by Plaintiff.

There are three claims for relief laid down by Plaintiff which deals with the alleged infringement of the Patent owned by Plaintiff.

In its prayer for relief Plaintiff has requested the court for an award for injunctive relief along with damages, including lost profits and a reasonable royalty, and exemplary damages in the amount up to three times actual damages as provided for Shoe Charms LLC’s willful actions in violation of Jibbitz’s intellectual property rights pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with an award for attorney’s fees, costs, and such equitable relief as 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.