Klipsta Pty Limited v. Lindsay Albanese

This case, Klipsta Pty Limited v. Lindsay Albanese, IPR2025-00346, involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047. The Petitioner, Klipsta Pty Limited, is an Australian-based operating company specializing in innovative, award-winning accessories such as magnetic hat clips, glasses holders, and bag hooks, designed to simplify life on the go. The Patent Owner, Lindsay Albanese, is a renowned fashion stylist, entrepreneur, and inventor from the United States, who founded her namesake brand known for "serviceable style" products. Her flagship product, the "TOPTOTE" hat clip, is directly protected by the patent at issue.

The sole patent under review is U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047, titled "Hat holder," which was granted to Lindsay Albanese. This patent describes a device for carrying a hat hands-free, featuring a first and second strap with ferromagnetic members that magnetically connect, along with a hook for attachment to a bag or belt loop. The IPR was initiated by Klipsta, a direct competitor in the market for portable hat-carrying solutions, suggesting a challenge to Albanese's intellectual property protecting her TOPTOTE product. This competitive dynamic is a key aspect of the case's context.

Filed on December 19, 2024, at the PTAB, the petition for Inter Partes Review was instituted on July 10, 2025. The procedural posture of this IPR is particularly notable because the Patent Owner, Lindsay Albanese, has explicitly declined to present claims and defenses, opting instead to accept the Board's final written decision. This highly unusual stance suggests a strategic concession, a lack of resources for defense, or an acknowledgment of strong invalidity arguments, potentially leading to a swift invalidation of the challenged patent claims. The PTAB, a specialized administrative court within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, provides a crucial alternative venue for challenging patent validity outside of district court litigation, often impacting the broader market and competitive landscape for patented technologies.

The case in question, Klipsta Pty Limited v. Lindsay Albanese, IPR2025-00346, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047. While the prompt asks for "patent infringement litigation," the provided case number and court explicitly indicate an IPR. Therefore, this summary will focus on the IPR proceedings and any directly related district court litigation involving the same patent and parties that web searches uncover.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Parallel District Court Litigation (Found through web search):

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: On November 1, 2023, Shenzhen City Sanhu Technology Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Lindsay Albanese and Hats On, LLC (doing business as TopTote). The suit alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047, which covers a hat holder product.
• Dismissal: On June 6, 2024, the plaintiff, Shenzhen City Sanhu Technology Co., Ltd., filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating the action against all defendants. This dismissal occurred 218 days after filing, before any substantive court rulings or merits adjudication. The dismissal "without prejudice" means Sanhu retains the theoretical right to refile claims.

Note: Klipsta Pty Limited was not the plaintiff in this district court case. This suggests that Klipsta's IPR is not directly a counter-proceeding to an infringement suit by Lindsay Albanese, but rather an independent challenge to the patent's validity.

2. PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2025-00346):

• Filing of Petition: Klipsta Pty Limited filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Lindsay Albanese concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047 on December 19, 2024.
• Mandatory Notices: Patent Owner Lindsay Albanese submitted Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, identifying herself as the real party-in-interest and stating that, to date, no other IPR proceedings had been filed on related patents that would affect or be affected by a decision in this proceeding.
• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR on July 10, 2025.
• Patent Owner's Decision: Following institution, the Patent Owner, Lindsay Albanese, declined to present claims and defenses, opting to accept the Board's final written decision.

3. Current Posture/Outcome (IPR):

• As of the current date (July 11, 2026), the IPR is still active, moving towards a Final Written Decision (FWD).
• Typically, a Final Written Decision is issued within twelve months of institution, though it can be extended by up to six months for good cause. Given the institution date of July 10, 2025, the FWD would ordinarily be expected by July 10, 2026, or by January 10, 2027, if extended. Given the current date is July 11, 2026, a final written decision may have been recently issued or is imminent if no extension was granted. However, without a specific record of the FWD, the case remains officially active in the IPR process.
• The outcome of an FWD can include upholding the claims, canceling them, or a mixed result. Either party can appeal the FWD to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This case, Klipsta Pty Limited v. Lindsay Albanese, IPR2025-00346, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case in a district court. In an IPR, Klipsta Pty Limited is the Petitioner.

As of the current date, July 11, 2026, a search for the public docket and related filings for IPR2025-00346 does not clearly identify the counsel of record for the Petitioner, Klipsta Pty Limited. The available information primarily details the institution decision and the Patent Owner's (Lindsay Albanese) decision to decline presenting claims and defenses.

Filings such as the "Patent Owner's Power of Attorney" and "Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices" refer to counsel for Patent Owner Lindsay Albanese, specifically mentioning Benjamin E. Maskell. However, these documents do not provide information regarding the legal representation for the Petitioner, Klipsta Pty Limited.

Therefore, without access to the specific filings from Klipsta Pty Limited that would designate their counsel (e.g., their IPR petition or a power of attorney filed by them), the counsel of record for the plaintiff (Petitioner Klipsta Pty Limited) cannot be definitively identified from the public information currently available.

Counsel of record representing Lindsay Albanese in IPR2025-00346 includes:

• Benjamin E. Maskell

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Maskell Law PLLC
  • Office Location: Arlington, VA
  • Experience: Registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 64,785) representing patent owners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Thomas Tatonetti

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Tatonetti IP, Inc.
  • Office Location: Brooklyn, NY
  • Experience: Registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 73,779) representing patent owners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.