DCT

2:10-cv-00158

MM&R Inc v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00158, C.D. Cal., 03/01/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are said to reside, have a regular and established place of business, and/or have committed acts of infringement within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ heated, rotating hair styling tools infringe a patent related to a hair styling device with a motorized rotating cylinder and a movable styling arm.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to personal grooming appliances that seek to combine the functions of a hair brush, curling iron, and hair dryer into a single, automated device to simplify home hair styling.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that Plaintiffs previously sued Defendant Stitch N' Genius, Inc. over a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,681,228), which resulted in a settlement that included a covenant not to sue limited to that patent. A central dispute in the current case involves a declaratory judgment action to determine if that prior covenant bars the current infringement claims under the newly asserted ’646 patent, which issued after the prior litigation was initiated.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-02-24 ’646 Patent Priority Date
2009-06-08 Prior litigation filed against Defendant Stitch N' Genius (Case CV 09-4082)
2009-12-15 ’646 Patent Issue Date
2010-03-01 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,631,646 - HAIR STYLING TOOL WITH ROTATABLE CYLINDER

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,631,646, "HAIR STYLING TOOL WITH ROTATABLE CYLINDER", issued December 15, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty for a person styling their own hair, which requires reaching around the head with raised arms and performing an "unnatural" twisting motion to rotate a brush, a process made more complex when also aiming a separate hair dryer (’646 Patent, col. 1:40-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated hair styling tool that automates this process. It features a motorized, heated cylinder that rotates, combined with a styling arm that pivots to clamp a section of hair against the rotating cylinder. This arrangement allows a user to style hair by simply drawing the tool from root to tip, without needing to manually rotate the device (’646 Patent, col. 1:55-63; Fig. 1). Certain embodiments also include a detector that senses the direction the user is pulling the tool and automatically rotates the cylinder in the corresponding direction (’646 Patent, col. 2:46-57).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aimed to simplify the complex, multi-step process of simultaneously brushing, drying, and styling hair by integrating these functions and automating the difficult manual rotation of the brush (’646 Patent, col. 1:47-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify which specific claims of the ’646 Patent are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention’s more complex embodiments.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A body
    • A cylinder extending from the body, rotatable in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions
    • A motor to rotate the cylinder
    • A heater
    • A movable styling arm for positioning hair against the cylinder
    • A "detector" for sensing the direction of the tool's movement along the hair and causing the motor to rotate the cylinder in a corresponding direction (’646 Patent, col. 12:41-58).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint broadly accuses "hair styling tools that embody the patented invention" made, used, or sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶18). It specifically identifies one product by name: the "TruLift Rolling Styler Item 560-295" sold by Defendant Home Shopping Network, Inc. (HSN) (Compl. ¶37).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products. It alleges that a video on HSN's website for the TruLift Rolling Styler contains statements about a "switch for the rolling mechanism," but provides no further description of how the accused products function or allegedly infringe (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges these products are sold to consumers via the internet within the judicial district (Compl. ¶39).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-by-claim analysis, as it does not identify any specific asserted claims or map accused product features to claim limitations. The core infringement allegation is a general statement that Defendants "have infringed and are still infringing the Patent by making, selling, importing and/or using hair styling tools that embody the patented invention" (Compl. ¶18).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be an evidentiary one: does discovery reveal that the accused products actually perform the functions required by the patent's claims? For example, for a claim like independent claim 1 to be infringed, the accused product must possess not just a rotating cylinder, but also the specific "detector" for automatically sensing the direction of movement along the hair and controlling the motor accordingly. The complaint provides no facts to suggest the accused products have this advanced feature.
    • Scope Questions: Should Plaintiffs assert claims that do not require the automatic direction detector, the dispute may focus on the scope of more basic terms. The question will be whether the specific mechanical and electrical configuration of the accused products' cylinder, motor, and styling arm falls within the scope of the patent's claims as they would be construed by a court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint’s lack of detail on the infringement theory makes identifying key terms speculative. However, based on the technology, the following term from independent claim 1 would likely be a central point of dispute.

  • The Term: "detector adapted for detecting the direction of movement of the styling arm along a user's hair" (’646 Patent, col. 12:50-52).
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a key automated feature that distinguishes more sophisticated embodiments of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because whether the accused products contain a structure that meets this definition could be dispositive for infringement of claims that include it.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple distinct embodiments of the detector, including a mechanical version with a "tab" (1702) and an "opto-electronic" version with light beam sensors (1804) (’646 Patent, col. 11:55-65). A party could argue this demonstrates the patentees intended the term to cover a range of mechanisms that achieve the function of directional control, not just one specific structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself further defines the detector as comprising three distinct components: "(i) a direction sensor," "(ii) an actuator," and "(iii) a position sensor" (’646 Patent, col. 12:59-65). A party could argue that to meet this limitation, an accused device must have three discrete or identifiable corresponding structures, and that a simple, manually-operated two-way switch for rotation would not qualify as a "detector" that automatically "senses" movement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is "willful, wanton and deliberate, with full knowledge of Plaintiffs' rights" (Compl. ¶20). This allegation is supported by the factual assertion that "Plaintiffs have given Defendants written notice of the infringement" (Compl. ¶19), which could establish a basis for post-notice willfulness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A threshold issue will be one of contractual scope and preclusion: the court will likely need to resolve the declaratory judgment action concerning the prior settlement with Defendant Stitch N' Genius. The key question is whether the covenant not to sue, expressly limited to the ’228 patent, has any prohibitive effect on this new suit involving the after-issued ’646 patent, a question that will turn on the specific language of the settlement agreement.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: due to the complaint's lack of factual detail, the case will depend entirely on whether discovery reveals a direct match between the accused products' features and the specific elements recited in the patent's claims. A central point of inquiry will be whether any accused product incorporates the sophisticated, automatic "detector" system required by several independent claims, or if they utilize a simpler, user-controlled mechanism that may not fall within the patent's scope.