US 10413047

US Patent 10,413,047, titled "Hat holder," was invented by Lindsay Albanese. The patent was filed on March 29, 2018, and issued on September 17, 2019. The current assignee is listed as "Individual," though Google Patents notes this information may be inaccurate and makes no representation as to its accuracy.

The abstract describes a hat holder comprising a first strap and a second strap, both having a first and second end. The second strap is joined to the first strap. A first ferromagnetic member is located at the first end of the first strap, and a second ferromagnetic member is at the first end of the second strap. A hook is coupled to the first strap. The first and second straps are designed to be separably joined at their respective first ends through magnetic attraction between the two ferromagnetic members.

Here is a plain-language overview of the independent claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a system for holding a hat, which includes the hat itself. The system features two straps, a first and a second, each with a top and a bottom end. The second strap is connected to the first strap. Each strap has a ferromagnetic (magnetically attractive) component at its bottom end. A hook is attached to the first strap. The two straps are designed to temporarily attach to each other at their bottom ends via the magnetic pull between their ferromagnetic components, thereby holding a part of the hat (such as the brim) between them.
• Independent Claim 16: This claim also describes a system for holding a hat, including the hat. It consists of a first strap and a second strap, each with a top and bottom end. The two straps are joined together at their top ends. A permanent magnet is attached to the bottom end of the first strap, and a ferromagnetic (magnetically attractive) material is attached to the bottom end of the second strap. These straps are configured to be separably joined at their bottom ends by the magnetic attraction between the magnet and the ferromagnetic material, which allows them to retain a portion of the hat.

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any specific litigation or case law directly involving US Patent 10,413,047.

The search results provide the missing details for the litigation cases related to US Patent 10413047.

Here's a summary of the findings:

Case 1: US case filed in California Central District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Shenzhen City Sanhu Technology Co., Ltd.
• Defendant(s): Lindsay Albanese, Hats On LLC
• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
• Case Number: 8:23-cv-02047
• Filing Date: November 1, 2023
• Outcome/Current Status: Voluntary dismissal, closed June 6, 2024. The dismissal was without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff's right to refile. This case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York.

Case 2: US case filed in New York Eastern District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Shenzhen City Sanhu Technology Co., Ltd.
• Defendant(s): Lindsay Albanese, Hats On LLC, and Hats On LLC doing business as TopTote
• Jurisdiction: Eastern District of New York
• Case Number: 1:23-cv-07691
• Filing Date: October 16, 2023
• Outcome/Current Status: Transferred to the Central District of California, which became case 8:23-cv-02047. The court in EDNY issued an order to show cause for improper venue, as neither party resided there and no conduct giving rise to the suit occurred there.

Case 3: PTAB case IPR2025-00346

• Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Klipsta Pty Limited
• Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Lindsay Albanese
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-00346
• Filing Date: December 19, 2024
• Outcome/Current Status: Instituted on July 10, 2025. The Patent Owner declined to present claims and defenses, opting to accept the Board's final written decision.The following is a list of known litigation involving US patent 10413047:

1. District Court Case: California Central District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Shenzhen City Sanhu Technology Co., Ltd.
• Defendant(s): Lindsay Albanese, Hats On LLC
• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
• Case Number: 8:23-cv-02047
• Filing Date: November 1, 2023
• Outcome/Current Status: The case was voluntarily dismissed on June 6, 2024. This dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff retains the right to refile the action. This case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York.

2. District Court Case: New York Eastern District Court

• Plaintiff(s): Shenzhen City Sanhu Technology Co., Ltd.
• Defendant(s): Lindsay Albanese, Hats On LLC, and Hats On LLC doing business as TopTote
• Jurisdiction: Eastern District of New York
• Case Number: 1:23-cv-07691
• Filing Date: October 16, 2023
• Outcome/Current Status: The case was transferred to the Central District of California on October 30, 2023, due to improper venue, and was subsequently opened as case 8:23-cv-02047 in that jurisdiction.

3. PTAB Case: Inter Partes Review (IPR)

• Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Klipsta Pty Limited
• Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Lindsay Albanese
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-00346
• Filing Date: December 19, 2024
• Outcome/Current Status: The petition for Inter Partes Review was instituted on July 10, 2025. The Patent Owner, Lindsay Albanese, declined to present claims and defenses, stating an intention to accept the Board's final written decision.

Proceedings overview

One Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding has been filed against US Patent 10,413,047, which has reached a Final Written Decision. The outcome of this decision at a claim-level is not publicly available through general search queries. This means that while the patent has undergone an AIA trial, the specific claims that were challenged and their patentability status (sustained or canceled) remain unknown without access to the full Final Written Decision document. This limits the ability to assess the current defensive posture for a defendant without further investigation.

IPR2025-00346 — KLIPSTA PTY LTD v. Albanese, Lindsay

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-19
• Status: Final Written Decision — issued on or around 2026-07-10 (last modified 2026-07-10)
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available through general search. Typically, an IPR panel consists of three Administrative Patent Judges.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the statutory basis (§ 102 for anticipation / § 103 for obviousness) for the petition grounds are not publicly available through general search. However, IPRs are limited to challenges based on patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: The details of the institution decision, including the date and the panel's reasoning, are not publicly available through general search. For a Final Written Decision to be issued, the PTAB must have instituted review of at least some of the challenged claims. An institution decision is typically issued within six months of the petition filing.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued on or around July 10, 2026. However, the specific verdict at a claim-level granularity, including which independent or dependent claims were canceled or held patentable, and the panel's reasoning, is not publicly available through general search.
• Settlement / termination: There is no public information indicating a settlement or termination prior to the Final Written Decision in this proceeding.
• Appeal: There is no public information available regarding an appeal of this Final Written Decision to the Federal Circuit as of the current date.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that US Patent 10,413,047 has been subjected to an IPR trial that concluded with a Final Written Decision. Without the content of the FWD, it is impossible to determine if any claims were invalidated or if all claims were sustained. If claims were invalidated, any infringement theory built upon them would be significantly weakened. Conversely, if claims were sustained, they are considered "hardened" against the specific prior art and arguments raised (or reasonably could have been raised) by the petitioner.

Strategic summary

One IPR proceeding, IPR2025-00346, has gone to a Final Written Decision concerning US Patent 10,413,047. However, the specific details regarding which claims of US10413047 are now CANCELED versus SUSTAINED versus UNTESTED are not publicly accessible through general search results. Therefore, it is currently unknown how much the patent has been narrowed, if at all, through this IPR.

The estoppel landscape dictates that KLIPSTA PTY LTD (the petitioner) and its privies are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground of invalidity or unpatentability that they raised or reasonably could have raised in this IPR in any subsequent civil action or International Trade Commission proceeding. Without the petition details, the specific prior-art grounds that are now subject to estoppel for KLIPSTA PTY LTD are unknown. For other potential defendants, prior-art grounds not raised or that could not have been reasonably raised by the petitioner remain available. There are no patterns signaling multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as this is the only identified IPR for this patent.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant facing assertion of US Patent 10,413,047, the most critical next step is to obtain and review the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00346. This document would definitively state the patentability of each challenged claim.

1. Obtain Final Written Decision: Access the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS), which replaced PTAB E2E, to retrieve the full Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00346. Search for IPR2025-00346 on the P-TACTS system.
2. Analyze Claim Outcomes: Carefully analyze the FWD to identify precisely which claims, if any, were canceled and which were sustained. If claims relevant to your product or service were canceled, this significantly strengthens your defensive position.
3. Review Reasoning: Understand the PTAB's reasoning for its decision, as this can inform future invalidity arguments or confirm the strength of surviving claims.
4. Assess Estoppel: Based on the FWD and the IPR petition, determine the scope of estoppel for KLIPSTA PTY LTD. This will clarify which prior art arguments are no longer available to them or their privies against this patent.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for US Patent 10,413,047 is Lindsay Albanese. At the time of filing (March 29, 2018), the patent records indicate the original assignee as "Individual," which suggests Lindsay Albanese was acting as an independent inventor or through a directly associated personal entity.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is "Individual," which corresponds to the inventor, Lindsay Albanese. Lindsay Albanese is a known entrepreneur and fashion stylist who markets and sells hat holder products, such as "The Hat Saver," that embody the claims of this patent. Her primary line of business is fashion accessories, and her current status is operating, with an active commercial presence.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database for patent number US10413047 yielded no recorded assignments. This indicates that no transfers of ownership for this patent have been formally recorded with the USPTO since its issuance. Therefore, the patent's ownership likely remains with the original assignee, Lindsay Albanese (Individual).

The USPTO database confirms that US Patent 10,413,047 is titled "Hat holder" and was issued to Lindsay Albanese.

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited in US Patent 10,413,047:

Cited by Examiner

These patents were cited by the patent examiner during the prosecution of US 10,413,047.

1. US 2,615,227 A

   • Full Citation: US 2,615,227 A, "Magnetic clasp coupling for jewelry," Hornik, Frederick.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: October 28, 1952. Filing date: November 18, 1949.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a magnetic clasp primarily for jewelry, which uses magnetic attraction to join two parts.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1 and 16 related to the use of magnetic attraction between ferromagnetic members to separably join components. Specifically, the core concept of using magnets for closure is present.

2. US 2,771,230 A

   • Full Citation: US 2,771,230 A, "Hat hanger and identifying means for hat," Fitzpatrick, Henry.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: November 20, 1956. Filing date: April 12, 1954.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a hat hanger, which includes means for identifying the hat. While it focuses on hanging and identification, it deals with the general problem of hat storage.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent might be relevant to the broad concept of a "hat holder" as stated in Claims 1 and 16, particularly concerning means for holding a hat when not worn. However, it does not appear to involve magnetic retention or a strap-based system.

3. US 5,890,638 A

   • Full Citation: US 5,890,638 A, "Belt mounted hat clip," Woloshen; B. Jim.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: April 6, 1999. Filing date: November 6, 1997.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a hat clip designed to be mounted on a belt. It focuses on a mechanical clip for securing a hat.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference could anticipate the general idea of a portable device for holding a hat, attachable to a user's person (e.g., a belt), as broadly described in Claims 1 and 16 regarding the "hook coupled to the first strap." However, it uses a mechanical clip rather than magnetic attachment for the hat itself.

4. US 2009/0106944 A1

   • Full Citation: US 2009/0106944 A1, "Safety device for ring-like accessories," Hsu, Tzu-Shun.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: April 30, 2009. Filing date: October 25, 2007.
   • Brief Description: This application describes a safety device for securing ring-like accessories, potentially using magnetic elements or other fastening means to prevent loss.
   • Potential Anticipation: Depending on the specific magnetic mechanisms detailed, this might be relevant to the magnetic fastening aspects of Claims 1 and 16. It shows the use of magnetic elements for securing accessories.

5. US 2015/0115008 A1

   • Full Citation: US 2015/0115008 A1, "Hat Attachment Clip," Griffith, James Stewart.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: April 30, 2015. Filing date: October 30, 2013.
   • Brief Description: This application describes a clip specifically designed for attaching hats to other objects. It likely involves a mechanical clipping mechanism.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US 5,890,638 A, this could be relevant to the concept of a "hat holder" that attaches a hat to another object. It focuses on clips rather than magnetic retention for the hat.

6. US 9,408,992 B2

   • Full Citation: US 9,408,992 B2, "Method and apparatus for reversibly connecting a nasal tube to a person's clothing," Smith-Reynolds, Moniqua.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: August 9, 2016. Filing date: December 11, 2013.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for reversibly connecting a nasal tube to clothing, potentially using magnets for attachment.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference demonstrates the use of magnetic attachment for reversibly connecting an article to clothing. This could be considered relevant to the magnetic attachment features of Claims 1 and 16, specifically the "separably joined at their respective first ends by a force of magnetic attraction" and the general idea of attaching an object to a person's apparel.

Family Cites Families (Other Prior Art)

These patents were cited by other patents that also cited US 10,413,047. They are considered relevant prior art but were not directly cited by the examiner against US 10,413,047.

1. US 306,417 A

   • Full Citation: US 306,417 A, "Adjustable cuff-holder," (No inventor listed on Google Patents).
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: October 14, 1884.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an adjustable cuff-holder. While it deals with holding an item of apparel, it is an older mechanical device.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is likely only broadly relevant to the general concept of "holders or carriers for hand articles" (A45F5/00) or "fastening articles to the garment" (A45F5/02), as categorized in the patent's classifications. It does not appear to anticipate specific features of US 10,413,047 such as magnetic retention or the strap configuration.

2. US 4,361,934 A

   • Full Citation: US 4,361,934 A, "Golf score card and pencil holder," Darnell Randolph G.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: December 7, 1982. Filing date: August 11, 1980.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a holder for a golf score card and pencil. It is a specific utility holder.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US 306,417 A, this is broadly relevant to the idea of a "holder" for an item. It does not appear to anticipate any specific features of magnetic hat retention or the strap design of US 10,413,047.

3. US 6,425,167 B1

   • Full Citation: US 6,425,167 B1, "Clothing accessory clip," Barbarite, Anthony S.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: July 30, 2002. Filing date: June 12, 2000.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a clip for clothing accessories. It likely uses a mechanical clipping mechanism.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent could be broadly relevant to the "hook coupled to the first strap" element in Claims 1 and 16, if interpreted as a general accessory clip. However, it does not appear to disclose magnetic hat retention.

4. US 2004/0172735 A1

   • Full Citation: US 2004/0172735 A1, "Glove hanging device," Garland Brian P.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: September 9, 2004. Filing date: March 3, 2003.
   • Brief Description: This application describes a device for hanging gloves.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference is broadly related to holding garments. It does not specifically address hat holding, magnetic retention, or the dual-strap configuration of US 10,413,047.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 10,413,047

To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it must be demonstrated that the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This analysis typically involves identifying prior art references, understanding the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and articulating a motivation for a PHOSITA to combine or modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.

The independent claims of US Patent 10,413,047 generally describe a hat holder comprising two straps with ferromagnetic members at their ends for magnetic attraction to retain a hat, and a hook for attaching the holder to an external object.

Combination of Prior Art References: US5890638A (Woloshen) and US2615227A (Hornik)

A strong combination of prior art references that would render the independent claims of US10413047 obvious includes US5890638A to Woloshen ("Belt mounted hat clip") and US2615227A to Hornik ("Magnetic clasp coupling for jewelry").

1. US5890638A to Woloshen (Belt Mounted Hat Clip):
Woloshen discloses a "belt mounted hat clip for holding a hat" which includes a "hat clip means for grasping the hat and a belt clip means for attachment to a belt" (US5890638A Abstract). This reference clearly teaches the fundamental concept of a portable device designed to hold a hat and attach to a user's belt or similar object. The "hat clip means" inherently involves two members that come together to secure a portion of the hat, and the "belt clip means" functions as a hook for external attachment.

2. US2615227A to Hornik (Magnetic Clasp Coupling for Jewelry):
Hornik teaches a "magnetic clasp coupling for jewelry comprising a pair of elongated tubular members..." (US2615227A Abstract). This patent demonstrates the well-known principle and practical application of using magnetic attraction to separably join two members. It establishes the technical feasibility and utility of magnetic couplings for fastening purposes.

Motivation for Combination and Obviousness

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date June 27, 2017) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Woloshen and Hornik to create the hat holder described in US10413047. The patent itself identifies problems with existing hat holding solutions, noting they can be "inconvenient, cumbersome, not stylish, or risk damage to the hat".

Motivation to combine:
The primary motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these references would be to improve the hat-retaining mechanism of a device like Woloshen's by incorporating the advantages of magnetic fastening, as demonstrated by Hornik. Mechanical clips, such as those implied by Woloshen, can be cumbersome to operate (often requiring two hands), may cause damage or indentations to hat brims, and might not always be aesthetically pleasing. Substituting the mechanical "hat clip means" in Woloshen with a magnetic coupling, as taught by Hornik, would offer several advantages:

• Ease of Use: Magnetic fasteners allow for quick, one-handed attachment and detachment of the hat.
• Reduced Damage: Magnetic attraction can hold a hat more gently than a mechanical clip, minimizing pinching or crushing of the hat material.
• Aesthetics: Magnetic closures can be more discreet or integrated into a fashionable design than exposed mechanical clips.

Therefore, a PHOSITA, seeking to develop a more user-friendly, less damaging, and potentially more stylish hat holder that still provides hands-free portability (as taught by Woloshen), would find it obvious to replace the mechanical hat-grasping mechanism of Woloshen with the magnetic coupling system taught by Hornik. This combination directly addresses the core elements of independent claims 1 and 16.

Specific elements addressed by the combination:

• First and second strap, joined, to retain a hat: Woloshen's "hat clip means" provides the functionality of two members (which can be straps) configured to grasp and retain a hat. The connection of these members to the "belt clip means" implies they are "joined."
• First and second ferromagnetic members (or magnet and ferromagnetic member) disposed at ends, separably joined by magnetic attraction: Hornik explicitly teaches magnetic clasps for coupling two members. A PHOSITA would readily understand how to integrate these magnetic elements into the hat-grasping ends of the straps from Woloshen. The patent itself acknowledges that ferromagnetic members can be permanent magnets or ferrous materials, and that two magnets or a magnet and a ferrous material can be used for magnetic attraction.
• Hook coupled to the first strap: Woloshen's "belt clip means" serves this purpose, providing a means to attach the hat holder to an external object like a belt loop or bag.

Dependent Claims

Many of the dependent claims also describe features that would be obvious to a PHOSITA based on general knowledge or other prior art:

• Extension Member (Claim 3): The addition of an extension member to adjust the length of a hanging device is a common design choice. The patent itself notes its advantage in preventing damage by keeping the hat away from the wearer's body. Such members are widely known in various carrying devices.
• Gripping Members (Claims 5-8, 18): Adding gripping members like spikes, ridges, or abrasive material to increase friction and retention in a clamping or gripping device is a well-known engineering principle to enhance securement. The patent states they "concentrate the force... over a smaller area more effectively pinching or gripping a hat".
• Hook Variations (Claims 9-10): The use of a rigid loop with a gate (carabiner) or a flexible strap with a closure (snap, button, Velcro) are common, interchangeable fastening mechanisms for attaching items to belts, bags, or other objects. Woloshen and US20150115008A1 (Griffith) illustrate various clip and carabiner-style attachment means.
• Ferromagnetic Members Disposed/Sewn into Strap (Claims 11-12): Embedding functional components like magnets within layers of fabric and securing them with stitching or other fasteners is a conventional manufacturing technique in textile and accessory design.
• Single Folded Strap (Claim 13): Forming two straps from a single folded piece of material is a common and obvious construction method for manufacturing efficiency and aesthetic continuity.
• Permanent Magnet (Claims 14-15): The use of permanent magnets for magnetic attraction is fundamental to magnetic fasteners, as taught by Hornik. Specifying opposed poles for two magnets (Claim 15) is inherent to achieving attraction.
• Straps Coupled to Interior of a Bag (Claim 17): Integrating a hat holder directly into the interior of a bag, with the retaining mechanism accessible from the outside, is an obvious design adaptation for a portable accessory to offer convenient storage and deployment. The patent describes this alternative use.

In summary, the combination of Woloshen and Hornik would have provided a PHOSITA with all the essential elements and the motivation to combine them, rendering the independent claims of US10413047 obvious. The additional features in the dependent claims represent either conventional design choices, known enhancements, or variations readily apparent to a PHOSITA.