DCT
2:17-cv-01150
DEB IP Ltd v. CWGC La Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DEB IP Ltd. (England) and Deb USA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: CWGC La Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP; McAndrews Held & Malloy
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-01150, W.D.N.C., 07/01/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s commission of acts giving rise to the action within the district, including directing efforts to sell and selling the accused products in the Western District of North Carolina.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SierraSoft" foam soap cartridge infringes a patent related to liquid dispensers that create and dispense foam.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical pump mechanisms for disposable soap cartridges that mix liquid soap with air to produce foam, a widely used technology in public and commercial restrooms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on March 29, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant identifying the patent-in-suit and the accused product, which may serve as a basis for alleging willful infringement from that date forward.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-03-30 | '586 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-07-04 | '586 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-03-29 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2016-07-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,082,586 - Liquid Dispenser for Dispensing Foam
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes drawbacks in prior art foam dispensers, including the need to pump liquid upward against gravity, which requires increasing force as the container empties, and the exposure of the liquid soap to air, which can cause oxidation, thickening, and clogging of the dispenser mechanism (’586 Patent, col. 1:33-51, 60-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a disposable cartridge combining a collapsible liquid container with an integrated foam pump. The pump uses two telescoping cylindrical members to define separate air and liquid chambers. Actuating the pump pressurizes both chambers simultaneously, forcing air and liquid to combine and pass through a mesh screen, which generates the foam. Because the container is collapsible and the pump is sealed within its throat, outside air does not enter the liquid reservoir, and the unit can be operated in any orientation (’586 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:4-16).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a self-contained, sealed system that aims to produce consistent foam while preventing the degradation and clogging associated with air exposure in prior dispensers (’586 Patent, col. 2:5-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A collapsible container with an interior and a throat;
- A pump with opposing first and second telescopingly movable enclosure members;
- The first enclosure member is sealed in the container's throat;
- The second enclosure member has a flexible seal angled outwardly to engage the first member;
- The two members cooperate to define an air chamber and a separate fluid flow passageway;
- The fluid flow passageway has a fluid inlet valve to admit liquid from the container and a fluid outlet valve to control liquid flow into a mixing chamber; and
- A porous member is located downstream of the outlet valve to foam the commingled air and liquid before expulsion through an outlet passageway.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "SierraSoft" foaming soap cartridge, intended for use in wall-mounted dispensers (Compl. ¶13, ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the SierraSoft cartridge is a self-contained unit comprising a collapsible container and an integrated pump (Compl. ¶19-20). The pump allegedly contains two opposing and telescoping members that define an air chamber, with a flexible seal providing an air seal between them (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint further alleges the pump includes a fluid flow path with inlet and outlet valves, and a porous member that foams the air and liquid when the pump is actuated (Compl. ¶22-24). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'586 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a collapsible container having an interior and a throat | The SierraSoft cartridge has a collapsible container with an interior and a throat. | ¶19 | col. 3:21-27 |
| b) pump means attached to said container, the pump means including opposing first and second enclosure members... the second enclosure member being mounted within said first enclosure member and telescopingly movable with respect thereto | The SierraSoft cartridge includes a pump with two opposing enclosure members, where the second is mounted within the first and is telescopingly movable. | ¶20 | col. 4:21-28 |
| the first enclosure member being sealed in said throat with an air-tight seal | A first enclosure member of the pump is sealed in the throat of the container. | ¶20 | col. 5:1-4 |
| the second enclosure member having a flexible seal angled outwardly therefrom toward and engaging the first enclosure member | The second enclosure member has a flexible seal that is angled outwardly toward, and engages, the first enclosure member to provide a friction fit and an air seal. | ¶20, ¶21 | col. 4:29-35 |
| the first and second enclosure members cooperating to define an air chamber therebetween... the air chamber being in communication with a mixing chamber | The two opposing members of the pump define an air chamber between them, which is in communication with a mixing chamber. | ¶21 | col. 5:4-9 |
| a fluid flow passageway having a fluid inlet in flow communication with the interior of the container, the fluid inlet including a fluid inlet valve for admitting liquid into said flow passageway | The pump includes a fluid flow passageway with a fluid inlet and an associated fluid inlet valve for admitting liquid from the container. | ¶22 | col. 3:51-57 |
| a fluid outlet valve in the flow passageway for controlling flow of liquid from the flow passageway into the mixing chamber | The pump includes a fluid outlet valve in the flow passageway to control liquid flow into the mixing chamber. | ¶23 | col. 4:11-17 |
| a porous member located downstream from the fluid outlet valve and the mixing chamber for foaming air and liquid mixed in the mixing chamber | The pump includes a porous member located downstream from the fluid outlet valve and mixing chamber, which foams the mixed air and liquid that passes through it. | ¶23 | col. 3:64-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations track the claim language very closely. A primary point of dispute may be whether the term "collapsible container", as used in the patent, reads on the accused product. The defense may argue the term is limited to the specific gusseted container that collapses into an "I beam section" as described in the specification (’586 Patent, col. 3:27-30), potentially creating a non-infringement argument if the accused container deforms differently.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused product's internal components function as claimed. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused product’s seal is "angled outwardly toward...engaging the first enclosure member" in the manner required by the claim? (Compl. ¶20). Similarly, discovery will be needed to determine if the accused "porous member" is technically equivalent to the "wire gauze, grid or mesh" described in the patent (’586 Patent, col. 3:64-65).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "collapsible container"
Context and Importance: The use of a collapsible container is a central feature that differentiates the invention from prior art requiring vented bottles and suction tubes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific manner and degree of "collapse" could be a critical point of distinction between the patented invention and the accused product.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not specify a particular structure or method of collapse, suggesting any container designed to deform inward as liquid is removed could fall within its scope (’586 Patent, col. 7:55-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the container "is gusseted along the sides 38 thereof so that as liquid is drained the container collapses along creases 39 to form an I beam section," which could be argued to limit the term to containers with this specific feature (’586 Patent, col. 3:27-30).
The Term: "flexible seal angled outwardly"
Context and Importance: This element is critical for achieving the "air-tight seal" between the two telescoping pump members, which is necessary to pressurize the air chamber. Its precise geometry and function will likely be a focus of non-infringement arguments.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language focuses on the functional aspects: the seal must be flexible, angled outward, and engage the other member to create a seal. An argument could be made that any structure meeting these functional requirements infringes, regardless of its specific form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific "U-shaped cylindrically shaped seal" with a "section 99 angled upwardly and outwardly." A defendant may argue that this specific embodiment defines and limits the scope of the claimed term (’586 Patent, col. 4:29-35; Fig. 3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had "full knowledge of the 586 patent" and that its continued infringement is "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶25). This allegation is based on a pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant on March 29, 2016, which identified the patent and the accused product (Compl. ¶14-15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "collapsible container", which is described in the specification as a specific gusseted structure, be construed broadly enough to read on the design of the accused SierraSoft cartridge? The outcome of this claim construction dispute could be determinative for infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused product’s internal pump mechanism, particularly its sealing and foaming components, actually operate in the specific manner required by the claim language? The complaint’s conclusory allegations will need to be substantiated with evidence showing a direct correspondence between the accused device's structure and the patent's claims.