Johnston v. Guardian Sports LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shane Michael Johnston (Central District of California)
  • Defendant: Guardian Sports, LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Pierson Ferdinand LLP; Vista IP Law Group LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-02211, N.D. Ga., 04/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because the Defendant resides in the district, has committed acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "LOOP" line of protective headgear infringes five U.S. patents related to headbands with externally-mounted protective inserts.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for supplemental or primary head protection in sports by providing a low-profile, modular headband with pads to absorb impact forces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant's co-branding partner, Xenith, LLC, cited the earliest patent-in-suit ('394 Patent) in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of its own design patent application. The resulting design patent, U.S. D956,359, lists the '394 patent and the application for the '946 patent as cited references, which may be used to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-04-14	Earliest Priority Date for all five patents-in-suit
2018-09-25	U.S. Patent No. 10,080,394 Issued
2020-01-07	Xenith, LLC files '760 Design Patent Application
2020-06-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,681,946 Issued
2022-06-28	Xenith's U.S. Design Patent No. D956,359 Issued
2023-04-18	U.S. Patent No. 11,627,771 Issued
2024-06-25	U.S. Patent No. 12,016,408 Issued
2024-08-15	Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of infringement
2024-12-21	Certificate of Correction Issued for '946 Patent
2024-12-21	Certificate of Correction Issued for '408 Patent
2026-02-17	U.S. Patent No. 12,550,958 Issued
2026-04-22	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,080,394 - HEADBAND WITH PROTECTIVE INSERT

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,080,394, issued September 25, 2018 Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶15

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for head protection that can supplement a helmet in certain sports or act as a primary layer of protection in sports where helmets are not typically worn (e.g., soccer, basketball) ʼ394 Patent, col. 1:32-49 The solution must balance safety with comfort, minimal profile, and aesthetics ʼ394 Patent, col. 1:21-27
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a headband with one or more protective inserts, which can be enclosed in pouches attached to the headband's outer surface ʼ394 Patent, abstract ʼ394 Patent, col. 2:64-col. 3:1 This design allows for targeted protection of specific, vulnerable areas of the head and can be worn alone or under other headgear ʼ394 Patent, col. 2:1-5 ʼ394 Patent, col. 2:56-59
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a framework for a modular and customizable protective headgear system that could be adapted for various sports and levels of impact risk ʼ394 Patent, col. 1:44-49

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 10 and 13 Compl. ¶16
• Independent Claim 1 of the '394 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • A headband configured to fit around a head, having an open top and a plurality of pouches attached to its outer surface.
  • A plurality of protective inserts, each at least partially enclosed within a respective pouch.
  • The inserts are positioned to at least partially cover at least two of eight specified regions of the head: frontal, left/right parietal, left/right sphenoidal, and left/right temporal, and occipital.

U.S. Patent No. 10,681,946 - HEADBAND WITH PROTECTIVE INSERT

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,681,946, issued June 16, 2020 Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶34

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '394 patent, the '946 Patent addresses the same problem: the need for versatile, comfortable, and low-profile head protection for athletes ʼ946 Patent, col. 1:20-24 ʼ946 Patent, col. 1:47-53
• The Patented Solution: The patent again describes a headband with protective inserts held in pouches on the outer surface ʼ946 Patent, abstract The claims in the '946 patent are structured differently from those in the '394 patent, focusing on the core combination of the headband, pouches, and inserts without enumerating specific anatomical regions in the independent claim ʼ946 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: This patent broadens the protection around the core concept of a headband with external, pouch-enclosed inserts ʼ946 Patent, col. 2:56-59

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 13 Compl. ¶35
• Independent Claim 1 of the '946 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • A headband configured to fit around a head, having an open top and a plurality of pouches attached to its outer surface.
  • A plurality of protective inserts, each at least partially enclosed within the plurality of pouches respectively.

U.S. Patent No. 11,627,771 - HEADBAND WITH PROTECTIVE INSERT

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,627,771, issued April 18, 2023 Compl. ¶43 Compl. ¶47
• Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the same theme of a protective headband, addressing the need for modular head protection. The patented solution is a headband with pouches containing inserts, with claims directed to specific features such as corrugated inserts and the inclusion of a top portion for the headband '771 Patent, abstract '771 Patent, claims 2-3
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 9, 11, and 19 are asserted Compl. ¶48
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's LOOP products embody the claimed headband with pouch-enclosed inserts Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶49

U.S. Patent No. 12,016,408 - HEADBAND WITH PROTECTIVE INSERT

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,016,408, issued June 25, 2024 Compl. ¶54 Compl. ¶58
• Technology Synopsis: This patent further develops the invention, describing a protective headband where the pouches are permanently attached to the outer surface, for instance, by stitching '408 Patent, abstract '408 Patent, claim 1 This addresses the need for a durable, non-detachable construction.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 9, 10, 19, and 20 are asserted Compl. ¶59
• Accused Features: The LOOP products are accused of infringing by having pouches permanently stitched to the headband and containing protective inserts Compl. ¶59 Compl. ¶60

U.S. Patent No. 12,550,958 - HEADBAND WITH PROTECTIVE INSERT

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,550,958, issued February 17, 2026 Compl. ¶65 Compl. ¶69
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a protective headband where protective inserts are enclosed within pouches in "fixed positions" '958 Patent, claim 1 The problem is ensuring consistent placement and stability of the protective elements during use.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10-18 are asserted Compl. ¶70
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the LOOP products infringe by having protective inserts held in fixed positions within pouches on the headband Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶71

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "Guardian Xenith LOOP" and an original version of the "LOOP" product (collectively, "Accused Products") Compl. ¶9

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the Accused Products as protective headgear sold on Defendant's website Compl. ¶8 The complaint includes an annotated photograph of the Guardian Xenith LOOP product, which shows a fabric headband with multiple distinct padded sections arranged on its outer surface Compl. ¶9 Compl. Ex. 6, pp. 1-4 A separate annotated photo shows a second version of the LOOP product, which also appears to be a headband with exterior padding Compl. ¶9 Compl. Ex. 6, p. 5 The complaint alleges these products are co-branded with Xenith, LLC, a third party Compl. ¶18

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes general allegations that the Accused Products meet every limitation of the asserted claims, referencing exhibits that include annotated photos and a claim chart Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶36 The infringement theory centers on the assertion that the Accused Products are headbands with exterior padded sections that correspond to the claimed "pouches" and "protective inserts."

'394 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a headband configured to fit around a head of a person, the headband having an open top and a plurality of pouches attached to an outer surface of the headband;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products are headbands with features corresponding to pouches on the outer surface, as depicted in exhibits Compl. ¶9 Compl. Ex. 6	¶17	col. 2:59-col. 3:1
and a plurality of protective inserts each at least partially enclosed within the plurality of pouches respectively, and positioned to at least partially cover at least two of the following regions of the head of the person when the headband is fit around the head of the person: frontal; left parietal; right parietal; left sphenoidal; right sphenoidal; left temporal; right temporal; and occipital.	The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain protective inserts within these pouches that are positioned to cover at least two of the specified anatomical head regions.	¶17	col. 4:1-4

'946 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a headband configured to fit around a head of a person, the headband having an open top and a plurality of pouches attached to an outer surface of the headband;	The complaint alleges the Accused Products are headbands with features corresponding to pouches on the outer surface, as depicted in exhibits Compl. ¶9 Compl. Ex. 6	¶36	col. 2:60-col. 3:4
and a plurality of protective inserts each at least partially enclosed within the plurality of pouches respectively.	The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain protective inserts held within these pouches.	¶36	col. 3:1-4

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Anatomical Scope Question: For the '394 Patent, a central factual dispute will be whether the pads on the Accused Products, when worn, actually "cover at least two" of the eight specifically enumerated cranial regions. This may require expert testimony to map the product's pads to standard anatomical models.
  • Structural Scope Question: For all asserted patents, a key question may be whether the structure of the Accused Products-which appear to have padded sections stitched onto the fabric-meets the claim requirement of "protective inserts" that are "enclosed within... pouches." The defense may argue that the product is a unitary construction rather than the two-component "insert-in-pouch" system described in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"pouch"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to all asserted patents. The infringement case hinges on whether the structures holding the protective padding on the Accused Products qualify as "pouches." A narrow construction could place the Accused Products outside the claims' scope if their construction is deemed to be integrated padding rather than inserts within a separate container.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating pouches may be "open ended, or sealable" and attached by various means, including permanent sewing or detachable means like VELCRO '394 Patent, col. 2:27-28 '394 Patent, col. 3:4-7 This may support an argument that any structure on the outer surface that holds an insert qualifies as a pouch.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent phrasing "inserts... enclosed within... pouches" '394 Patent, claim 1 suggests a pouch is a distinct enclosing structure separate from the insert it holds. Figures 1 and 2 also depict pouches as discrete pockets sewn onto the headband. A party could argue this implies more than just a piece of padding stitched directly to a band.

"positioned to at least partially cover"

• Context and Importance: This phrase from claim 1 of the '394 Patent is critical for determining infringement of that patent. The parties will likely dispute what degree of overlap is required for a pad to "partially cover" one of the eight specific anatomical regions recited in the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "partially" suggests that any amount of overlap with the specified region is sufficient, and a plaintiff would likely argue for this plain meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term implies a functionally meaningful degree of coverage, not just incidental contact. The specification describes an embodiment where the inserts are positioned to "cover each of the... regions" '394 Patent, col. 4:1-4, which could be used to argue that while partial coverage is allowed, the intent was to protect the enumerated zones substantially.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful, intentional, and deliberate Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶41 Compl. ¶52 Compl. ¶63 Compl. ¶74 The basis for this allegation is two-fold: (1) alleged knowledge of the patents since at least August 15, 2024, followed by continued infringement Compl. ¶27; and (2) alleged imputed knowledge from the patent prosecution of Defendant's co-branding partner, Xenith, LLC, which cited the '394 patent and whose own issued design patent cites both the '394 patent and the application for the '946 patent Compl. ¶¶19-26 Compl. ¶¶37-39

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to present several key questions for the court that blend claim construction, factual analysis, and legal standards for willfulness.

• A primary issue will be one of structural definition: Do the padded sections of the Accused Products, which appear to be stitched directly onto the headband, constitute "protective inserts" that are "enclosed within" distinct "pouches," as required by the claims? Or is this an integrated design that falls outside the claimed two-part system?
• For the '394 patent specifically, a core dispute will be an anatomical mapping question: What evidence will establish whether the pads on the Accused Products are "positioned to at least partially cover" two or more of the eight specific anatomical regions recited in claim 1? This will likely require a battle of experts on both product function and human anatomy.
• A significant legal and factual question will be the imputation of knowledge for willfulness: Can the knowledge of patents from a co-branding partner's (Xenith's) separate patent prosecution be legally imputed to the Defendant (Guardian Sports) to establish the knowledge and intent required for a finding of willful infringement?