Fabletics fights back in dispute with ‘patent troll’
California-based “athleisure” company Fabletics has filed a complaint against Landmark Technology, based in Delaware, seeking a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement of a patent.
Founded by actress Kate Hudson, Fabletics sells stylish women’s sportswear and accessories.
In the lawsuit, filed at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, on Friday, January 6, Fabletics claimed that it had not infringed US patent number 6,289,319 and that the patent was invalid.
The patent, called “Automatic business and financial transaction processing system”, is directed to an automatic data processing system.
Fabletics claimed that since September 2008, Landmark has been involved in 39 lawsuits asserting the ‘319 patent.
“By its own admission, Landmark files patent infringement lawsuits against companies that refuse to pay the requested sum in Landmark’s licensing demand letters,” said the claim.
The “athleisure” company added that none of the 56 lawsuits involving Landmark or its predecessor, PanIP, has made it as far as claim construction.
Fabletics received a letter in October 2016 from Landmark asserting that the company had infringed the patent through the use of its servers.
According to Fabletics, the letter concluded with an offer for a “non-litigation” and non-exclusive licence to Landmark’s patent portfolio, which includes the ‘319 patent, in exchange for $45,000.
“Immediately following the offer, the first Landmark letter threatens to withdraw the offer in the event of litigation to discourage Fabletics from defending itself,” said the claim.
A second letter, sent in December, reminded Fabletics that the earlier offer had elapsed and Landmark offered a non-exclusive licence to its patent portfolio.
“Upon information and belief, Landmark Technology is in the business of patent licensing through the threat of litigation—commonly referred to as a patent troll,” said the claim.
The retailer claimed that Landmark’s litigation demonstrates “a pattern of litigious zeal”, and the fact that “roughly half” of Landmark’s patent litigation involves the ‘319 patent “creates a reasonable fear” that Fabletics was the “next target”.
The claims of the ‘319 patent do not constitute patentable subject matter, said Fabletics, and the patent is invalid as obvious because of prior art.
Fabletics is seeking a declaration of non-infringement and patent invalidity, and an order that Landmark is enjoined from enforcing any patent related to the ‘319 patent against Fabletics.
Brian Mitchell, founder of Mitchell + Company and representative of Fabletics, said: "We are confident that our client will succeed in obtaining a declaration from the court that Landmark’s patent is invalid and not infringed."
