NY Patent Decisions Blog
Categories / Search
Search Blog
Filter By Categories:
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)
This Wallet Case Has Yet to Fold: Judge Komitee Denies Motion to Dismiss Patent Infringement Claims
December 15, 2025
Tiffany Li
On December 9, 2025, District Judge Eric Komitee (E.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Bemmo, Inc.’s (Bemmo) motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding Plaintiff The Ridge Wallet, LLC (Ridge Wallet) pled sufficient facts for direct and indirect patent infringement. Ridge Wallet, LLC v. Bemmo Inc., No. 23-cv-2091 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2025).
Ridge Wallet sells thin, hard-shelled wallets and owns a patent protecting its “compact wallet” design. Id. at *1. In 2023, Ridge Wallet sued Bemmo, alleging that Bemmo’s competing “Slim Wallet” infringes Ridge Wallet’s patent and trade dress. Bemmo moved to, among other things, dismiss Ridge Wallet’s patent infringement claims. Judge Komitee denied Bemmo’s motion to dismiss in full.
On direct infringement, Bemmo argued that Ridge Wallet failed to state a claim because its Slim Wallet lacks two claim limitations in Ridge Wallet’s patent: the “Auxiliary Feature Limitation” and “Recess Limitation.” Id. at *3. Specifically, Bemmo argued that its wallet lacks the claimed “hook that engages with an undercut in the recess between the two sandwiching plates of the wallet,” and instead uses screws. Id.
Judge Komitee found Bemmo’s argument premature, stating plaintiffs are “not required to plead infringement on an element-by-element basis.” Id. at *2 (citation omitted). Consequently, the appropriate question is “not whether the Slim Wallet actually meets the limitations,” but whether Ridge Wallet’s interpretation of how the Slim Wallet meets the limitations is “so unreasonable as to be amenable to rejection.” Id. at *3 (citing Everdry Marketing and Mgmt, Inc. v. Delves & Giufre Enterprises, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 3d 626, 632 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)). Because Ridge Wallet’s claim chart indicates that the upper ridge of the Slim Wallet’s auxiliary feature—the money clip—“hooks” at an angle to engage with a recess in the wallet, its interpretation is at least plausible at this stage. Id. at *3.
Next, Judge Komitee found that Ridge Wallet adequately pled scienter as required for both induced- and contributory-infringement claims by filing takedown requests with Amazon for Bemmo’s wallets and sending a cease-and-desist letter describing infringement of its patent. Id. at *4.
Finally, the Court reserved ruling on Bemmo’s requests to dismiss Ridge Wallet’s punitive damages claim for willful infringement under Section 284 of the Patent Act and its claims for pre-litigation damages under Section 287 because neither statute “provide[s] a distinct cause of action” subject to dismissal at this stage. Id. at *4–5.
Firm Highlights
Blog Post
Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted to require courts to enforce parties’ contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes. In bankruptcy cases. judges will consider if sending parties to arbitration in light of the specific claims asserted conflicts with bankruptcy jurisdictional rules.
A recurring issue that litigants raise is whether a conflict exists between the FAA and requirements of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For instance, courts wrestle with how the assertion of bankruptcy-derived core claims and non-bankruptcy noncore claims impacts whether they should enforce an arbitration clause.
Core claims are those that derive from the Bankruptcy Code, such federal fraudulent transfer claims. Noncore claims are those that would exist between parties even outside of bankruptcy, such as breach of contract claims governed...
Publication
Executive Order Addressing Anticompetitive Behavior In The Food Supply Chain Provides Insight On The Trump Administration’s Antitrust Enforcement Priorities
In December 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order, titled “Addressing Security Risks from Price Fixing and Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Food Supply Chain,” signaling in no uncertain terms that his Administration intends to crack down on collusion in food-related industries. The Order, among other things, directs the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission to create “Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces” that will investigate domestic entities to identify any anticompetitive behavior in U.S. food supply chains, as well as any ways in which foreign entities may be increasing the cost of U.S. food products. The Order underscores the Executive Branch’s existing focus on the food sector, with DOJ’s Antitrust Division having formalized a partnership with...
Event
Firm Partners to Speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference
On April 22, Partners Lachlan Campbell-Verduyn and Andrew D. Cohen will speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, the preeminent forum for pharmaceutical patent litigation.
At 9:45am, Dr. Campbell-Verduyn will speak on a panel titled "Avoiding Costly Conception and Inventorship Missteps in Pharmaceutical Patent Cases." With Tom Irving and Jonathan James Underwood, she will discuss recent cases and best practices around questions of inventorship and conception.
At 3:30pm, Dr. Cohen will speak on a program titled "Promise and Peril for Patents: Navigating Mandated Disclosures and Prior Art Pitfalls." He will join Angie Verrecchio (Senior Counsel, Patent Litigation, Johnson & Johnson), Ryan Johnson, and Ricardo Camposanto to explore whether or not clinical trials and disclosures of information are...
Event
Thomas Kurland to Speak at DRI's 2026 Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar
On Thursday, April 16, Partner Thomas Kurland will present a program at DRI's Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar titled "Methodologies on Trial: Sharpening Expert Strategy in Asbestos & Talc." Mr. Kurland will join Janelle N Winters (Member, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C.) to explore which strategies succeed when defending or attacking expert methodology and what recent shifts in methodology challenges mean for the future of case strategy.
To learn more, click here.
Blog Post
Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract
Recently, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant CloudTalk.io, Inc.’s (“CloudTalk”) motion to dismiss Missed Call, LLC’s (“Missed Call”) complaint, finding that the asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Missed Call, LLC v. CloudTalk.io, Inc., No. 25 Civ. 7776 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2026).
Missed Call is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 (“the ’872 Patent”), which is directed to a communication device that indicates whether a missed call is urgent or non-urgent based on how the call was terminated. Id. at *1. Specifically, calls terminated by a network are categorized as urgent, and calls terminated by the caller are categorized as non-urgent. Id. Missed Call accused CloudTalk of infringing the ’872 Patent....
Publication
Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Right to Donate to Patient Assistance Charities, With Possible Impact on Enforcement of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision striking down California’s Assembly Bill 290 (“AB 290”) on First Amendment grounds. See Fresenius Med. Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, No. 24-3654 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Its central holding was that providers of medical services have a protected First Amendment right to make donations to patient assistance charities that engage in expressive activity, even if those donations are driven by commercial self-interest. Although the case did not directly involve the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)—or any federal statute—it arguably calls into question the constitutionality of AKS proceedings often brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers that make analogous donations to patient assistance charities out of alleged self-interest.
AB 290, the California statute at issue...
Firm News
Employment Litigator Millie Warner Joins Patterson Belknap as Partner
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP is pleased to announce that Millie Warner has joined the firm as a Partner in its Litigation department and as a member of the Employment Litigation, Workplace Investigations, and Compliance practice. Ms. Warner advises clients on a wide range of employment law and human resources issues. She represents clients in employment litigation, conducts sensitive internal investigations, crafts and litigates employee non-compete and non-solicit agreements, advises on enforcement actions, and provides other strategic counseling to help corporations minimize legal, compliance, and reputational risks.
Ms. Warner counsels clients on disciplinary processes, termination of employees, and day-to-day human resources matters including drafting employment agreements, separation agreements, confidentiality and restrictive covenant agreements, and employment policies. She also has...
Publication
The Administration Is Illegally Firing Court-Appointed US Attorneys
The U.S. Department of Justice isn’t winning many friends on the front lines of the federal judiciary, the U.S. district courts. Besides repeatedly violating court orders, the DOJ is also thumbing its nose at the district courts when they attempt to appoint qualified persons to serve as U.S. attorneys in the absence of a Senate-confirmed nominee. Recent headlines tell the story: “U.S. Attorney Chosen to Replace Trump Pick Is Quickly Fired by White House” and "DOJ fires US attorney hours after judges appoint him."
The terminations by Todd Blanche, the deputy U.S. attorney general, are graceless and bombastic:
“Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella.”
"Here we go again. [Eastern District of Virginia]...
Blog Post
“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity
On March 30, 2026, United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y) denied Defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (“NJ Transit”) motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc.’s (“Bytemark”) claims. Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., et al, No. 17-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2026).
Bytemark provides a secure mobile ticketing platform for transit, tourism, and events. Bytemark has sued several defendants, including NJ Transit, for patent infringement, breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Bytemark alleges that two defendants, after entering into confidentiality agreements with Bytemark, used Bytemark’s intellectual property and trade secrets to secure a contract with NJ Transit for mobile ticketing and cut Bytemark out of the bidding process. Id. at *2–4.
In October 2022, NJ...
Firm News
Patterson Belknap Joins Amicus Briefs Supporting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey
Patterson Belknap has joined the amicus briefs supporting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey in their legal actions challenging the Executive Orders issued against those firms. Our firm has a history of defending the rule of law, and we are proud of our continued commitment. Our decision to participate as an amicus had nothing to do with politics or partisan ideologies. It had everything to do with what we view as our responsibility for and commitment to protecting the legal profession and our judicial system.
On April 3, 2026, the firm once again joined an amicus brief supporting law firms in their legal actions challenging the Executive Orders issued against them. The cases are on appeal to...
Blog Post
Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted to require courts to enforce parties’ contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes. In bankruptcy cases. judges will consider if sending parties to arbitration in light of the specific claims asserted conflicts with bankruptcy jurisdictional rules.
A recurring issue that litigants raise is whether a conflict exists between the FAA and requirements of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For instance, courts wrestle with how the assertion of bankruptcy-derived core claims and non-bankruptcy noncore claims impacts whether they should enforce an arbitration clause.
Core claims are those that derive from the Bankruptcy Code, such federal fraudulent transfer claims. Noncore claims are those that would exist between parties even outside of bankruptcy, such as breach of contract claims governed...
Publication
Executive Order Addressing Anticompetitive Behavior In The Food Supply Chain Provides Insight On The Trump Administration’s Antitrust Enforcement Priorities
In December 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order, titled “Addressing Security Risks from Price Fixing and Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Food Supply Chain,” signaling in no uncertain terms that his Administration intends to crack down on collusion in food-related industries. The Order, among other things, directs the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission to create “Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces” that will investigate domestic entities to identify any anticompetitive behavior in U.S. food supply chains, as well as any ways in which foreign entities may be increasing the cost of U.S. food products. The Order underscores the Executive Branch’s existing focus on the food sector, with DOJ’s Antitrust Division having formalized a partnership with...
Event
Firm Partners to Speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference
On April 22, Partners Lachlan Campbell-Verduyn and Andrew D. Cohen will speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, the preeminent forum for pharmaceutical patent litigation.
At 9:45am, Dr. Campbell-Verduyn will speak on a panel titled "Avoiding Costly Conception and Inventorship Missteps in Pharmaceutical Patent Cases." With Tom Irving and Jonathan James Underwood, she will discuss recent cases and best practices around questions of inventorship and conception.
At 3:30pm, Dr. Cohen will speak on a program titled "Promise and Peril for Patents: Navigating Mandated Disclosures and Prior Art Pitfalls." He will join Angie Verrecchio (Senior Counsel, Patent Litigation, Johnson & Johnson), Ryan Johnson, and Ricardo Camposanto to explore whether or not clinical trials and disclosures of information are...
Event
Thomas Kurland to Speak at DRI's 2026 Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar
On Thursday, April 16, Partner Thomas Kurland will present a program at DRI's Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar titled "Methodologies on Trial: Sharpening Expert Strategy in Asbestos & Talc." Mr. Kurland will join Janelle N Winters (Member, Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C.) to explore which strategies succeed when defending or attacking expert methodology and what recent shifts in methodology challenges mean for the future of case strategy.
To learn more, click here.
Blog Post
Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract
Recently, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant CloudTalk.io, Inc.’s (“CloudTalk”) motion to dismiss Missed Call, LLC’s (“Missed Call”) complaint, finding that the asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Missed Call, LLC v. CloudTalk.io, Inc., No. 25 Civ. 7776 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2026).
Missed Call is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 (“the ’872 Patent”), which is directed to a communication device that indicates whether a missed call is urgent or non-urgent based on how the call was terminated. Id. at *1. Specifically, calls terminated by a network are categorized as urgent, and calls terminated by the caller are categorized as non-urgent. Id. Missed Call accused CloudTalk of infringing the ’872 Patent....
Publication
Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Right to Donate to Patient Assistance Charities, With Possible Impact on Enforcement of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision striking down California’s Assembly Bill 290 (“AB 290”) on First Amendment grounds. See Fresenius Med. Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, No. 24-3654 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Its central holding was that providers of medical services have a protected First Amendment right to make donations to patient assistance charities that engage in expressive activity, even if those donations are driven by commercial self-interest. Although the case did not directly involve the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)—or any federal statute—it arguably calls into question the constitutionality of AKS proceedings often brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers that make analogous donations to patient assistance charities out of alleged self-interest.
AB 290, the California statute at issue...
