Johnnie O'Inc v. Global Apparel Alliance LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Johnnie-O, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Global Apparel Alliance LLC (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dority & Manning, P.A.; Buchalter, LLP
• Case Identification: 0:26-cv-00292, D.S.C., 01/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of South Carolina because Defendant maintains a business office in Rock Hill, SC, and has introduced the accused products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they would be sold in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shirts containing a "hidden 'sport style' placket button" infringe a patent related to a shirt garment with a hidden intermediate button.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the specific construction of a shirt placket designed to offer a middle-ground aesthetic between being too formally buttoned-up or too casually unbuttoned.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on November 7, 2025, Plaintiff notified Defendant of its infringement. It also alleges that Plaintiff sent correspondence to one of Defendant's customers, Westport Big & Tall, which subsequently ceased selling the accused products.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,538,791 - "Shirt Garment with Hidden Button"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,538,791, "Shirt Garment with Hidden Button", issued January 10, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a social and aesthetic dilemma in "business casual" attire. Buttoning a shirt too high can project an appearance of being "uptight or stuffy," while unbuttoning too many buttons can appear "sloppy" or expose an "inappropriate amount of chest hair or cleavage" ’791 Patent, col. 1:12-18 The problem is the lack of a standard button placement that provides an optimal, neat, yet casual appearance for the wearer ’791 Patent, col. 1:9-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a collared shirt that incorporates a hidden, smaller intermediate button located between the top two visible placket buttons ’791 Patent, Abstract This is achieved by creating a "fly-front" placket section specifically for this intermediate button, which involves an "intermediate piece" of material (51) layered between the top (42) and bottom (44) placket pieces, as depicted in Figure 2 (’791 Patent, col. 2:34-37, col. 2:40-53). The rest of the shirt placket remains conventional, with visible buttons. This construction allows the wearer to achieve a specific collar opening that is neither too high nor too low, without the visual clutter of an extra exposed button ’791 Patent, col. 1:22-26
• Technical Importance: This solution provides a specific structural method for garment manufacturers to control the drape and opening of a shirt collar when partially unbuttoned, addressing a common aesthetic preference in the apparel market.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1, which is the only claim in the patent Compl. ¶18
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A button-down shirt with a collar and a placket extending the length of the shirt.
  • The placket has a "bottom piece" with an attached collar button, first button, and second button, all of "substantially the same size."
  • The placket also has a "top piece" that overlays the bottom piece, with corresponding buttonholes.
  • The bottom piece includes a "single intermediate button" located between the first and second buttons, which is "smaller than" the other buttons.
  • The top piece includes a "single hidden intermediate piece" made of a "strip of placket material" affixed to its inner surface, forming a "pocket" and defining a buttonhole for the smaller intermediate button.
  • The intermediate button is located at a "midpoint" between the first and second buttons.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as there are none.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant GAA’s shirts that contain a "hidden 'sport style' placket button" also marketed as "Sporty on the Spot" (the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶6

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are shirts that feature a hidden button mechanism within the placket Compl. ¶6 The function of this feature, as implied by the infringement allegations, is to provide the wearer with a way to secure the shirt placket at a point between the standard visible buttons, thereby achieving the "optimally unbuttoned" look described in the ’791 Patent Compl. ¶16 The complaint alleges GAA manufactures, sells, and distributes these shirts throughout the United States Compl. ¶8

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary infringement chart (Exhibit B) that was not provided with the filed complaint Compl. ¶18, ¶24 The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that the Accused Products literally infringe at least claim 1 of the ’791 Patent Compl. ¶18 The central allegation is that Defendant's shirts, specifically those marketed with the "Sporty on the Spot" or "hidden 'sport style' placket button" feature, embody each element of claim 1 Compl. ¶6, ¶18 The complaint asserts that Defendant's acts of making, using, selling, and offering for sale these shirts constitute direct infringement Compl. ¶17, ¶24

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the specificity of the claim language and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:
  • Structural Questions: A central question will be whether the construction of the "Sporty on the Spot" feature in the Accused Products matches the specific structural limitations of claim 1. For instance, does it include a "top piece" and a "bottom piece" that are distinct components? More critically, does it contain a "single hidden intermediate piece" comprising a "strip of placket material" that is affixed to the "inner surface of the top piece" to form a "pocket"?
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may examine whether the components of the accused shirts meet the definitions laid out in the claim. For example, does the relative sizing of the visible buttons and the hidden button in the accused shirts meet the claim's requirements that the former be "substantially the same size" and the latter be "smaller"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a single hidden intermediate piece comprising a strip of placket material... forming a pocket therebetween"

• Context and Importance: This term recites a very specific three-part structure: (1) a single piece, (2) made of a specific material type, which is (3) attached in a way that creates a pocket. The viability of the infringement claim may depend heavily on whether the accused shirts’ hidden button mechanism is constructed in this precise manner. Practitioners may focus on this term because any deviation in the accused product—such as using a different construction that does not form a "pocket" or is not a "single piece"—could support a non-infringement argument.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition of "pocket," which may allow for arguments that any space sufficient to house the buttonhole meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires the piece to be "a strip of placket material having first and second longitudinal ends... affixed to an inner surface of the top piece." ’791 Patent, col. 4:23-26 Figure 2 and the accompanying description show a distinct piece of material (51) attached to the top piece (42/52) ’791 Patent, col. 2:40-53 This could be used to argue that the claim requires a specific, separate component attached in a particular way, not an integrated or folded-over structure that might achieve a similar function.

• The Term: "bottom piece" and "top piece"

• Context and Importance: The claim is structured around the interaction between these two primary placket components. Infringement requires the accused shirt to have a construction that can be mapped to this two-piece architecture. If the accused shirt placket is constructed from a single, folded piece of fabric, for example, a dispute could arise over whether such a structure meets the "bottom piece" and "top piece" limitations.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The terms are not explicitly defined, so one could argue they refer to the functional layers of the placket (the button-side and the buttonhole-side) regardless of whether they are manufactured from separate pieces of cloth.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description consistently refers to the "top piece 42 that overlays a bottom piece 44" ’791 Patent, col. 2:16-17 and shows them as distinct elements. This language could support an interpretation requiring two physically separate pieces of material joined together to form the placket.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that GAA "intentionally has encouraged and continues to encourage direct infringement by its customers and distributors" with knowledge of the ’791 patent Compl. ¶25 The alleged inducing acts include providing "product support and instructions on how to market and use the Accused Products" Compl. ¶26 The complaint also alleges a specific instance of contributory infringement, though it is framed as inducement, by noting GAA's sale of the Accused Products to a third-party retailer, Westport Big & Tall Compl. ¶19, ¶27
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged awareness of the ’791 Patent "at all relevant times" Compl. ¶17, ¶22 The complaint specifically pleads pre-suit knowledge by alleging that "Johnnie-O notified GAA of its infringement of the ’791 patent via correspondence" on November 7, 2025, several months before the complaint was filed Compl. ¶17

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to a few central questions concerning the specific structure of the accused shirts.

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the physical construction of the Defendant's "Sporty on the Spot" feature meet the highly specific architectural elements required by claim 1, particularly the "single hidden intermediate piece" made of "placket material" that is affixed to a "top piece" to form a "pocket"?
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the terms "top piece" and "bottom piece"? The infringement analysis may hinge on whether these terms require two separate components, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if they can be read more broadly to cover a placket made from a single, folded piece of fabric.
• Finally, an evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: What evidence will support the allegation that the Defendant was aware of the patent "at all relevant times" prior to the formal notice letter, and can the Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's continued sales after the notice rose to the level of willful infringement?