DCT
2:18-cv-00364
Metricolor LLC v. L'Oreal SA
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: MetriColor LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: L'Oréal S.A. (France); L'Oréal USA, Inc. (Delaware); L'Oréal USA Products, Inc. (Delaware); L'Oréal USA S/D, Inc. (Delaware); Redken 5th Avenue NYC, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Martorell Law APC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00364, C.D. Cal., 01/12/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants conducting substantial business, maintaining regular and established places of business, and committing alleged acts of infringement within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' professional hair color systems, including the Redken Chromatics and Color Gels Lacquers lines, infringe a patent related to an apparatus for accurately measuring and dispensing hair dye from sealed containers.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the professional hair salon market, where precise, repeatable color formulation and the reduction of product waste from oxidation are significant factors for both artistic quality and economic efficiency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-01-14 | '587 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-04-05 | '587 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-01-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,301,587 - “HAIR COLOR (OR DYE) STORAGE, DISPENSING AND MEASUREMENT (OR MEASURING) SYSTEM,” issued April 5, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies several drawbacks with conventional hair coloring systems, such as collapsible metal tubes. These include the inaccuracy of measuring dye by "squeezing to a line," the inability to dispense all the product, leading to waste (estimated at 25%), and product degradation from oxidation when caps are left off (ʼ587 Patent, col. 1:13-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that combines a container holding hair dye with an "air-tight reclosing seal" and a separate "graduated measuring and dispensing vessel," such as a syringe. The seal allows the vessel to engage the container, extract a precise, known quantity of dye, and then disengage, at which point the seal closes to protect the remaining contents from air exposure (ʼ587 Patent, col. 2:32-53). This system is designed to provide laboratory-level measurement accuracy in a salon environment while minimizing waste (ʼ587 Patent, col. 1:31-38).
- Technical Importance: The described approach sought to solve the long-standing salon problems of inconsistent color reformulation and significant product waste by introducing a closed, metered dispensing system.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A graduated measuring and dispensing vessel;
- A container with hair dye in an air-tight chamber and an opening;
- Means for engaging the container with a container holder for support;
- An air-tight reclosing seal at the opening that allows dye extraction when engaged by the vessel and closes the chamber when disengaged;
- Thereby permitting a known and repeatable quantity of dye to be withdrawn and dispensed.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Defendants’ professional hair color systems, specifically naming product lines such as Redken Chromatics and Redken Color Gels Lacquers (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are sold as systems comprising individual tubes or bottles of hair color that are dispensed by professional stylists, often using separate measuring tools, into mixing bowls to create custom hair color formulas (Compl. ¶¶17-19). A figure in the complaint, sourced from Defendant's marketing materials, depicts a stylist dispensing dye from an accused Redken bottle into a measuring bowl (Compl. ¶18, Fig. 3). The complaint asserts these are commercially successful and widely used product lines within the professional salon industry (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'587 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a graduated measuring and dispensing vessel | The complaint identifies measuring devices, such as applicator bottles with graduated markings or syringes used by stylists, as the claimed vessel (Compl. ¶21a). | ¶21a | col. 8:32-33 |
| a container having a hair dye contained therein, the container comprising an air-tight chamber and an opening | The Redken Chromatics tubes and Color Gels Lacquers bottles are identified as the claimed container, which holds dye in an air-tight chamber prior to use (Compl. ¶21b). | ¶21b | col. 8:34-36 |
| the container further including means for engaging the container with a container holder to support the container | The complaint alleges that the physical shape of the accused bottles and tubes allows them to be stored and supported in salon caddies or racks (Compl. ¶21c). | ¶21c | col. 8:37-39 |
| an air-tight reclosing seal at the opening, such that when the measuring and dispensing vessel engages the air-tight reclosing seal... and when the... vessel is disengaged from the container, the air-tight reclosing seal closes off... | The complaint alleges that the caps and nozzles on the accused product containers function as an air-tight reclosing seal that stylists open and close manually (Compl. ¶21d). | ¶21d | col. 8:40-48 |
| thereby permitting a known quantity of the hair dye to be withdrawn from the container into the measuring and dispensing vessel, allowing an accurate and repeatable quantity of hair dye to be dispensed from the container | Stylists allegedly use the accused system to dispense measured, known quantities of dye to create accurate and repeatable color formulas (Compl. ¶21e). | ¶21e | col. 8:49-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether a standard, manually operated bottle cap or nozzle on an accused product can meet the definition of an "air-tight reclosing seal" as claimed. The patent specification describes embodiments with more specific functionalities, such as a luer-lock connector or a self-sealing orifice reducer, which automatically close upon disengagement of a syringe (ʼ587 Patent, col. 3:18-24; col. 8:15-22). The court will have to determine if the claim language is limited to such automatic or specialized seals or if it can be read more broadly.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory appears to rely on the combination of a container sold by Defendants with a separate, often generic, measuring device used by a stylist. This raises the question of whether Defendants are liable for infringing an "apparatus" claim by selling only one component of that apparatus. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused container is designed in a way that specifically requires or encourages its use with a "graduated measuring and dispensing vessel" to form the complete claimed system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "an air-tight reclosing seal"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term appears central to the infringement dispute. The case may depend on whether the functionality of a standard product cap is legally equivalent to the "seal" described and claimed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's disclosure of a seal that interacts with a syringe and closes upon disengagement suggests a more specialized mechanism than a simple cap.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the plain language of the claim does not specify how the seal recloses (e.g., automatically vs. manually) and that any cap that can be removed and replaced to seal the container meets the literal terms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "when the measuring and dispensing vessel is disengaged from the container, the air-tight reclosing seal closes off the air-tight chamber" (ʼ587 Patent, col. 2:47-49). Defendants may argue this language, along with embodiments like luer-locks and self-sealing orifices (ʼ587 Patent, Fig. 14, col. 3:21-24), limits the claim scope to seals that are self-closing or part of an integrated, interlocking system, rather than a simple, unattached cap.
The Term: "means for engaging the container with a container holder"
- Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is therefore not limitless but is confined to the specific structures disclosed in the specification for performing the function, and their equivalents.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Disclosed Structure: The patent discloses specific structures for performing the function of supporting the container, including a "rack in which the container sits" and "pegs from which the container hangs" (ʼ587 Patent, col. 2:38-39; Fig. 1).
- Potential Dispute: The infringement argument hinges on whether the general shape of the accused bottles, which allows them to be placed on any shelf or in a generic caddy, is structurally equivalent to the specific rack and peg systems disclosed in the patent for organizing and supporting the containers.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing the accused containers along with instructions, marketing materials, and training to hair stylists that direct and encourage them to use the products with measuring devices in the allegedly infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶25-28).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages. This is based on the allegation that Defendants had knowledge of the ʼ587 patent at least as of the service of the complaint and continued their allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶30-32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "air-tight reclosing seal," which the patent specification links to syringe engagement and automatic closure, be construed to cover the conventional, manually-operated caps on the accused hair color bottles?
- A second critical question will be one of system infringement: does the evidence show that Defendants' products, as designed and marketed, are part of a single "apparatus" under the claim, or will the court view this as an impermissible attempt to claim the independent actions of end-users combining a L'Oréal product with a generic, third-party tool?
- Finally, the means-plus-function analysis will present an evidentiary challenge: does the mere fact that the accused containers can be placed in a generic rack make them structurally equivalent to the specific, organized hanging and seating structures disclosed in the patent's specification?