Several
sports manufacturers, including Nike, Under Armour, VF Corp and Columbia
Sportswear, are among the dozens of brands being charged by Tec-Technology
Enabled Clothing, Inc. with patent infringement. The complaint against these
companies stems from their use of “wire management capabilities for portable
electronic devices” in jackets.

 

According
to the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho, U.S. Patent No. RW40,613 entitled “Personal Assistant Garment”
(“the '613 paten”) was duly and lawfully signed on January 6, 2009
and awarded to TEC, based in Ketchum, ID. The '613 is a resissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,826,782
entitled “Personal Assistant Garment” that had been issued in
December 2004.

 

According
to the complaint, the patent covers a garment comprising: “a) a shell having an
interior surface and an exterior surface and including at least one opening
adapted to receive a portion of a wearer's body therein; b) a pocket exposed at
least partially on the interior surface of the shell and including an aperture
allowing items to be inserted into the pocket, the pocket further including a
slit spaced from the aperture and adapted to enable a wire extending from an
item positioned within the pocket to pass therethrough; and c) a wire holding
member secured to the shell adjacent the at least one opening and adapted to
hold the wire extending from the slit in the pocket.”

 

According
to the complaint, “each and every defendant named herein makes, uses,
sells and/or imports at least one jacket and/or model of jacket that is
designed to provide the wearer with wire management capabilities for portable
electronic devices, including, for example, cellular telephones, mp3 players,
iPods, and the like, that facilitates the management of wires running from the
electronic device to the user.”

 

It also
claims that all defendants makes, uses, sells and/or imports at least one
jacket and/or model of jacket that includes: (i) at least an opening allowing a
wearer to put on the jacket; (ii) an interior pocket capable of retaining
items, including electronic devices, with at least one primary opening for
insertion of an item or items; (iii) an additional opening (separate from the
primary and larger opening of the pocket) that allows a wire running from an
electronic device retained within the pocket to exit the pocket; and (iv) a
wire holding member (e.g., and without limitation, an elastic or non-elastic
loop, rubber or plastic “tube,” clip or the like) secured to the jacket, which
is capable of guiding and/or holding a wire running from the electronic device
and through the additional opening separate from the primary and larger opening
of the pocket.”

 

It finally
claims that many of the defendants make products  which provide a wire holding member secured to
the interior surface of the jacket and/or (ii) a wire holding member made of a
loop of elastic material..

 

TEC is
seeking that the defendants account for and pay to TEC all damages caused by
the infringement of the ‘613 patent, “which by statute can be no less than
a reasonable royalty. The company is also seeking pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest on the damages caused by the alleged infringement.

 

American Recreation
Products Inc.; Banana Republic Inc.; Bergan of America Inc.; Bonfire
Snowboarding Inc.; The Burton Corporation; Calvin Klein Inc.; CMW Inc.;
Coalision U.S.A. Inc.; Collective Licensing International LLC; Columbia
Sportswear USA Corporation; Coupounas LLC; David Peyser Sportswear Inc.; Eddie
Bauer Inc.; FNC Kolon USA Corp.; Helly Hansen (U.S.) Inc.; Hugo Boss Fashions
Inc.; Ibex Outdoor Clothing Incorporated; J.C. Penney Corporation; LaFuma
America Inc.; L.L. Bean Inc.; Marker Volkl USA Inc.; Marmot LLC; Nike Inc.;
Nikita Clothing USA Inc.; Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation; Quicksilver Americas
Inc.; Rossignol Ski Company Inc.; Sport Oberneyer LTD.; Spyder Active Sports
Inc.; Tahsin Industrial Corp. U.S.A.; The Timberland Company; Under Armour
Inc.; and V.F. Corporation.