PDB Vs. Kellie Defries of Crystal Ninja

VIEW SUMMERY JUDGEMENT - Part 1

VIEW SUMMERY JUDGMENT - Part 2

The following are excerpts from a Ref. Court Document: Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00283-RM-MBD   
**This is a publicly available court filing.**

In 2022, DeFries began her campaign of asserting her patents that, as [the] Court found, she knew or should have known all along were invalid. DeFries’s commenced a nuisance-settlement strategy asserting her patents against hundreds of her competitors threatening each with millions of dollars in damages and defense costs to extract nuisance value settlements from each.

(ECF No. 77 at 1.)

On or about November 9, 2022, PDB, a competitor, received a cease and desist letter from DeFries alleging patent infringement, trademark infringement, and threatening $3,000,000 in damages and trebling. PDB promptly responded pointing out the numerous deficiencies in DeFries’s assertions and requesting DeFries withdraw its letter. DeFries did not respond. Facing the continued threat, PDB filed its declaratory judgment action before this Court.

(ECF No. 77 at 1–2.)

Subsequently, DeFries filed a patent infringement lawsuit against over 200 of her competitors in a Texas federal court. Fortunately, PDB had the fortitude to stand up to DeFries and, through this Court’s finding invalidating each of DeFries’s 5 asserted patents, cease DeFries’s frivolous litigation tactics.

(ECF No. 77 at 2.)

This case did not turn on differing opinions of experts or an unforeseen change in law. It turned on DeFries’ own conduct, all known to her before sending cease and desist letters and throughout this case. Before threatening competitors, a reasonable assessment of her asserted patent rights required confronting her previous acts and identifying any material distinction that avoided the on-sale bar. Her failure to supply such a distinction even at summary judgment supports the inference that no reasonable factual basis justified the demand or the counterclaims at their inception. See ECF No. 75 at 4–7.

(ECF No. 77 at 5.)

PDB submits that this case exposed a patent-enforcement shakedown: threaten competitors with crushing liability, make a license significantly cheaper than a defense thereby deterring a response, and collect payments on patents defeated by the inventor’s own earlier commercial activity.

(ECF No. 77 at 6.)

When PDB called that bluff by seeking declaratory relief, DeFries asserted five infringement counterclaims. PDB defeated them all based on DeFries’ own pre-critical-date sales evidence. ECF No. 75 at 1–2, 4–7.

(ECF No. 77 at 6.)

The nuisance-settlement business model failed here because PDB refused to be another victim coerced into paying a license fee out of fear created by a demand letter. This Court found that DeFries knew, or reasonably should have known, before enforcing these patents against PDB, that her own commercial history defeated them. See ECF No. 56 at 4. The decisive facts did not arise when PDB discovered them. They existed before the demand. DeFries’s inability to identify any material distinction between the earlier tool and the patented invention, even when required to do so at summary judgment, reinforces the inference that this enforcement campaign lacked a reasonable foundation from inception. See ECF No. 75 at 4–7.

(ECF No. 77 at 7.)

DeFries nuisance-settlement strategy involved demands far exceeding identified sales. In one instance, DeFries sought $47,000 from Annbay Ltd despite evidence of only $91.40 in gross proceeds in one quarter and no other sales. The Texas court rejected that calculation as disproportionate. See [DeFries v. MSB Trade Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00549-M (N.D. Tex.)], ECF No. 127 at 5 n.6.

(ECF No. 77 at 7.)

The demand to PDB used the expense of litigation as pressure to pay. The November 2022 letter accused PDB’s Rainbow tool of infringing the ‘005 and ‘839 patents and demanded an end to sales absent a negotiated royalty. It threatened approximately $3 million in recovery, including up to $2 million in statutory damages and estimated opposing attorney fees exceeding $200,000. It expressly warned that PDB would also incur its own defense costs and that settlement after suit would likely require payment. See ECF No. 14-3 at 1–2.

(ECF No. 77 at 7.)

The demand letter moved from patent allegations to intentional trademark infringement and statutory damages without identifying a trademark violation supporting that threatened exposure. See [ECF No. 14-3]; ECF No. 47 at 1–2. Its asserted damages and express warning about defense costs made the economic pressure concrete. The letter expressly made the cost of defending a suit part of the pressure to comply. Its switch from patent allegations to intentional trademark infringement and statutory damages, without identifying a trademark violation supporting that exposure, amplified the pressure rather than explaining the patent claim. See [ECF No. 14-3]; ECF No. 47 at 1–2.

(ECF No. 77 at 8.)

PDB declined to pay for peace and sought adjudication. DeFries responded by asserting infringement of five patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,308,005; 10,675,852; 10,967,625; D867,838; and D867,839. See ECF No. 24 at 15–21, ¶¶ 75–111. PDB’s choice to file first changed its procedural position, but the source of the controversy remained the demand to submit to enforcement of DeFries’ patents. The same portfolio, the same economic pressure in the demand, and the Texas licensing evidence support that PDB was another target of that campaign. After discovery began and the weakness of DeFries case began to be exposed, PDB voluntarily dismissed its declaratory claims without prejudice, leaving only DeFries’ infringement counterclaims. See ECF No. 47 at 4–5. PDB ultimately obtained summary judgment and final judgment against DeFries on those counterclaims. See ECF Nos. 75, 76.

(ECF No. 77 at 8.)

The patent system rewards inventors with limited exclusive rights to advance the constitutional purpose of promoting “the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. . . . It does not authorize a patentee to turn the expense of litigation into an instrument of coercion, extracting payments on patents she knew or reasonably should have known were invalid because of her own prior commercial acts.

(ECF No. 77 at 8–9.)

Court records referenced: ECF No. 56 (order denying DeFries’s motion to exclude); ECF No. 75 (order granting summary judgment, Sept. 22, 2026); ECF No. 76 (final judgment, Sept. 22, 2026); ECF No. 14-3 (November 2022 demand letter); ECF No. 24 (DeFries’s counterclaims).

Disclaimer

This page reflects the personal experience and opinions the owner of PDB BLANKS AND GLITTER LLC (DBA - PDB Creative Studio). Factual statements about the case are drawn from public court records. Excerpts are provided for informational purposes only.
Statements describing the impact on PDB Creative Studio represent my own opinion and experience. They are not intended as statements of fact about any other person or business beyond what appears in the court record.
PDB Creative Studio does not encourage or condone harassment, threats, personal attacks, or negative messages directed at Kellie DeFries, Crystal Ninja, or anyone associated with them. DO NOT contact them or post reviews or comments on our behalf for any reason.

**This page does not constitute legal advice. Nothing here should be read as a statement about matters outside the scope of the court’s findings.

.