IQRIS Techs. LLC v. Point Blank Enters

Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit addressed how the term “pull cord” should be interpreted in a patent dispute between IQRIS Technologies LLC and Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. The case centered on patents U.S. Patent No. 7,814,567 and U.S. Patent No. 8,256,020, which cover quick-release systems for tactical vests—gear commonly used by first responders and military personnel. IQRIS claimed that Point Blank’s vests, which use a trigger and cable system to quickly release the vest, infringed on its patents.

The main issue was how to define a “pull cord.” The district court had previously ruled that a “pull cord” must be a cord that is directly pulled by the user and cannot include a handle or trigger mechanism. Based on this narrow definition, the court found that Point Blank’s products did not infringe the patents, since their system used a trigger to pull internal cables rather than a cord pulled directly by hand.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s narrow interpretation. The appellate court found that nothing in the patent claims or the written description specifically limited a “pull cord” to one that is directly pulled by the user or that excludes handles or triggers. The court emphasized that patent claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless the patent clearly says otherwise. Since the patents did not clearly exclude pull cords with handles or triggers, the court vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

This decision highlights the importance of careful claim construction in patent cases, especially when the technology involves mechanical components that can be activated in different ways. The outcome means that the dispute over whether Point Blank’s vests infringe IQRIS’s patents will continue, but under a broader interpretation of what counts as a “pull cord.”