Klani LLC v. Mountain Girl Way LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: K'lani, LLC (Utah)
  • Defendant: Mountain Girl Way, LLC (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Stoel Rives LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00590, D. Utah, 06/26/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant having directed threats of patent infringement into the District of Utah, where the Plaintiff is based and where the alleged causes of action occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its hair tie bracelets do not infringe Defendant's patent and that the patent is invalid, following Plaintiff's receipt of cease-and-desist letters from the Defendant.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on consumer fashion accessories, specifically elastic hair ties designed to function as both a ponytail holder and a wearable bracelet.
• Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by cease-and-desist letters sent by Defendant to Plaintiff and to the wholesale platform FashionGo, on which Plaintiff sells its products. The complaint notes that Defendant was administratively dissolved in approximately 2020 and was reinstated in or around May 2026, shortly before sending the demand letters.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2018-04-25	'636 Patent Priority Date
2020-12-08	'636 Patent Issue Date
2021-01-01	Plaintiff K'lani founded
2026-05-01	Defendant entity reinstated (approximate)
2026-05-21	Defendant sends cease-and-desist and takedown letters
2026-06-26	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,856,636 - "PONYTAIL SECURING DEVICE"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,856,636, "PONYTAIL SECURING DEVICE," issued December 8, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes prior art ponytail holders but implies a need for a device that can secure hair effectively while being aesthetically unobtrusive Compl. ¶16 '636 Patent, col. 1:4-44
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an elastic strand wound into a multi-layered loop and held by a fastener. The strand is specifically designed to be dyeable to match a user's hair color, allowing it to be "substantially invisible" when worn '636 Patent, abstract '636 Patent, col. 2:1-19 This dual functionality allows it to serve as a discreet ponytail holder.
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides an aesthetic alternative to conventional hair ties by enabling the securing device to blend seamlessly with the user's natural hair color '636 Patent, col. 2:6-19

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 8 Compl. ¶30
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A singular elastic strand with a relaxed diameter of 0.25 mm to 1.5 mm.
  • The strand is "wound about a single axis to form a concentric plurality of hollow loops."
  • The loops are "substantially equal in diameter."
  • The loops are fastened together at a discrete location.
  • The elastic strand is "dyed to a color matching a color of human hair."
• Independent Claim 8:
  • An elongated elastic strand "wound about a single axis forming a plurality of concentric hollow loops having a substantially same diameter."
  • The strand has a relaxed diameter of 0.25 to 1.5 mm and is "stretchable to at least twice its relaxed length."
  • "at least one fastener-holding said concentric loops together to form a singular annular shape."
  • The device is adapted to receive and hold a group of hairs.
• The complaint also reserves the right to challenge the respective dependent claims Compl. ¶30

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Plaintiff K'lani's "hair tie bracelets" Compl. ¶4

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the products as originating from the idea of creating a bracelet that is "both stylish and as functional as a hair tie" Compl. ¶2 K'lani alleges its products are "hand-made" Compl. ¶31 The products are sold in thousands of retail stores across the United States and Canada and through the wholesale platform FashionGo Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶8

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes K'lani's primary arguments for why its products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.

'636 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 or 8)	Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
wound about a single axis to form a concentric plurality of hollow loops (Claim 1)	All of K'lani's products are "hand-made such that any loops would be formed around multiple axes, and not a shared common axis as required by all claims of the '636 Patent."	¶31	col. 4:57-59
said elastic strand dyed to a color matching a color of human hair (Claim 1)	"None of K'lani's products include an elastic strand 'dyed to a color matching a color of human hair' as required by claims 1-7 of the '636 Patent."	¶32	col. 4:63-64
at least one fastener-holding said concentric loops together to form a singular annular shape (Claim 8)	"None of K'lani's products include 'at least one fastener-holding...'. None of the products include any such fastener as taught and described by the '636 Patent."	¶33	col. 6:4-6

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of "wound about a single axis." The court will need to determine if this term requires a specific, mechanized manufacturing process involving a single mandrel, or if it can be read more broadly to cover a "hand-made" process that K'lani alleges involves "multiple axes" Compl. ¶31
  • Factual Questions: A key factual dispute will be whether K'lani's products are in fact "dyed to a color matching a color of human hair" as claimed Compl. ¶32 This will likely require an evidentiary showing regarding the color palette of K'lani's product line.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's assertion that its products lack a "fastener as taught and described by the '636 Patent" raises the question of how K'lani's bracelets are constructed and whether that method falls outside the patent's broad definition of a "fastener," which includes adhesives, knots, or even partial melting of the strand material '636 Patent, col. 4:54-60

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "wound about a single axis"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to K'lani's primary non-infringement theory, which hinges on its "hand-made" manufacturing process allegedly not using a "single axis" Compl. ¶31 K'lani also argues the term is indefinite because the word "axis" is not found in the specification, suggesting a potential validity challenge Compl. ¶43
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue that "single axis" simply refers to the resulting geometric configuration (a series of concentric loops) rather than mandating a specific manufacturing method. The figures, such as Figure 1, depict a generally circular but not perfectly uniform object, which could support a less rigid interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: K'lani's argument that the specification fails to mention the word "axis" could be used to argue the term is indefinite or, alternatively, that it should be strictly limited, potentially excluding processes that do not involve a clear, singular rotational axis Compl. ¶43

The Term: "substantially equal in diameter"

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because K'lani's "hand-made" process Compl. ¶31 may naturally introduce variations in loop diameter. The meaning of "substantially" will therefore be critical to determining infringement. K'lani attacks this term as "vague and indefinite" Compl. ¶43
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "substantially" is a recognized term of approximation in patent law. The patent figures themselves show loops that are not perfectly identical, which may support an interpretation that allows for some degree of manufacturing tolerance '636 Patent, Fig. 1
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "concentric" in the same claim limitation '636 Patent, col. 4:58 could be argued to imply a higher degree of regularity than might be achieved in a purely manual process, thereby narrowing the scope of "substantially equal."

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint is for a declaratory judgment and includes several counts beyond non-infringement.

• Denial of Infringement: K'lani explicitly denies any direct, indirect, contributory, or induced infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the '636 Patent Compl. ¶34
• Invalidity Allegations: K'lani asserts that all claims of the '636 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 Compl. ¶40 The complaint specifically argues:
  • Lack of Written Description/Enablement (§ 112(a)): The complaint alleges a mismatch between the claimed strand diameter range ("0.25 mm to 1.5 mm") and the ranges disclosed in the specification Compl. ¶42 It also argues the open-ended claim that the strand is "stretchable to at least twice its relaxed length" is not fully supported by the specification's disclosure of a stretch range of "1.5 to 5 times" Compl. ¶45
  • Indefiniteness (§ 112(b)): The complaint alleges that terms like "single axis," "substantially equal," and "dyed to a color matching a color of human hair" are vague and render the claims indefinite Compl. ¶¶43-44
• State Law and Other Federal Claims: The complaint also includes causes of action for failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287 Compl. ¶¶47-52, tortious interference with economic relations Compl. ¶¶63-68, and violation of Utah's Distribution of Bad Faith Patent Infringement Letters Act Compl. ¶¶69-77 These claims are based on the allegation that Defendant sent demand letters without a good faith basis for its infringement claims.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and validity: Can the term "wound about a single axis," which the complaint alleges is absent from the patent's specification, be construed to cover a "hand-made" manufacturing process? This question intertwines infringement with K'lani's indefiniteness challenge under § 112.
• A second key question will be one of written description: Does the patent's specification provide adequate written description and enablement for the full scope of the claimed numerical ranges (e.g., strand diameter) and open-ended functional properties (e.g., stretchability), or does the patent claim more than the inventors actually disclosed?
• Finally, the case presents a significant factual question: Beyond the legal arguments, a central evidentiary battle will likely focus on the physical characteristics of K'lani's products, specifically whether their method of construction uses a "fastener" and whether their color options fall within the scope of "dyed to a color matching a color of human hair."