DCT
2:23-cv-06322
Beachwaver Co v. L Ange Hair Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Beachwaver Co. (Illinois)
- Defendant: L'Ange Hair, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Crowell & Moring LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-06322, C.D. Cal., 08/03/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Le Pirouette line of rotating curling irons infringes two patents related to the mechanical and electrical structure of automated hair styling devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns motorized, rotating curling irons designed to simplify the hair curling process by automatically winding hair around a heated barrel.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,504,301 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 9,398,796. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents via a cease and desist letter, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-03-22 | Earliest Priority Date ('796 & '301 Patents) |
| 2012-03-09 | '796 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2012 | Plaintiff's Beachwaver Product Launch |
| 2016-07-26 | '796 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-11-29 | '301 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,398,796, "Hair Styling Device", Issued July 26, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional curling irons require a user to manually rotate the entire device with two hands to curl hair, which can lead to tangled cords and a high likelihood of being burned (’796 Patent, col. 1:12-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a hair styling device with a stationary, hand-held body and a motor-driven rotating cylinder (barrel). This allows a user to hold the device steady while the barrel automatically winds the hair (’796 Patent, Abstract). To power the heating element in the rotating barrel, the device uses a system of two "terminal discs"—one rotating with the barrel and one fixed in the body—with corresponding electrical contacts that remain in touch to provide a continuous electrical circuit during rotation (’796 Patent, col. 1:35-45; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to automate the hair winding process, making it faster, easier, and usable with one hand compared to conventional manual curling irons (Compl. ¶ 10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶ 42). Independent Claim 1 is detailed.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A body.
- A cylinder extending from the body, rotatable relative to the body, with a clamp for holding hair and an internal heating element.
- A rotatable rod affixed to the cylinder, extending into the body, and supported by a bearing that restrains lateral movement.
- A first terminal disc rotatably fixed with the cylinder, having concentric electrical annular contacts.
- A second terminal disc fixed to the body, with concentric continuous annular ring electrical contacts, where contacts on one disc are "bent upwardly" and on the other are "flat annular rings."
- The discs are held adjacent so their contacts remain in touch, with the rod extending through their centers and the contacts "circumscribing" the rod.
- A motor connected to the rod to rotate the cylinder.
- Plaintiff reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 42).
U.S. Patent No. 9,504,301, "Hair Styling Device", Issued November 29, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '301 patent, a continuation of the '796 patent, addresses the same problems of usability and safety in traditional curling irons (’301 Patent, col. 1:13-25).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that described in the '796 patent: a motorized, rotating barrel assembly powered through a system of fixed and rotating electrical contacts (’301 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:26-48). The core inventive concept of automating the winding motion while maintaining power to a heating element is retained.
- Technical Importance: As a continuation, this patent protects a similar inventive concept, potentially with a different claim scope, to provide broader coverage for the automated rotating curling iron technology (Compl. ¶ 13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claims 1-10 (Compl. ¶ 49). Independent Claims 1 and 9 are recited.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 are substantially similar to Claim 1 of the ’796 Patent, including a body, a rotatable cylinder with a clamp, a rotatable rod supported by a bearing, a first and second terminal disc with specific contact structures ("bent upwardly" and "flat annular ring"), and a motor (’301 Patent, col. 3:52 - col. 4:18).
- Plaintiff reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 49).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are L'Ange's line of rotating curling irons marketed under the name "Le Pirouette" (Compl. ¶ 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The Le Pirouette is described as a hair styling tool featuring an "easy-to-use spinning ... titanium barrel that does all the work for you" (Compl. ¶ 22). The device includes a clamp to hold hair against the barrel, which then rotates at the push of a button to create curls (Compl. ¶ 22). The complaint provides teardown photographs of the Le Pirouette, purporting to show its internal components, including a motor, a rotatable rod, and an assembly of electrical contacts designed to power the heated barrel during rotation (Compl. ¶¶ 23-27). This image of the Le Pirouette's internal motor assembly alleges the presence of a motor connected to the rotating cylinder (Compl. ¶ 27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'796 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body; | The Le Pirouette includes a body, or handle. | ¶21 | col. 2:62 |
| a cylinder extending from said body, said cylinder being rotatable relative to said body, said cylinder including a clamp... a heating element located within said cylinder; | The Le Pirouette includes a rotating barrel (cylinder) with a clamp and an internal heating element. | ¶22 | col. 2:4-14 |
| a rotatable rod affixed to and rotatable with said cylinder... supported by a bearing within said body that restrains lateral movement... and facilitate rotation... | The Le Pirouette allegedly contains a rotatable rod connected to the cylinder, extending into the body, and supported by a bearing. A teardown photograph is provided as evidence. | ¶23 | col. 2:1-11, 60-63 |
| a first terminal disc being rotatably fixed relative to said cylinder, said first terminal disc including concentric electrical annular contacts; | The device is alleged to include a first terminal disc fixed to the cylinder with concentric annular contacts, as shown in a teardown photograph. | ¶24 | col. 2:2-9 |
| a second terminal disc being fixed relative to said body... contacts on one of said annular rings are bent upwardly and contacts on other said contact disc are flat annular rings... said rotatable rod extending through centers of both said terminal discs... | The device allegedly includes a second, fixed terminal disc with specific bent and flat contacts that provide an electrical circuit, with the rod extending through the center. This is supported by a teardown photograph showing the alleged discs. | ¶¶25-26 | col. 2:22-30 |
| a motor connected to said rotatable rod to rotate said cylinder. | The Le Pirouette includes a motor connected to the rotatable rod to cause rotation of the barrel. | ¶27 | col. 2:46-47 |
'301 Patent Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegations for Claim 1 of the '301 patent are substantively identical to those for the '796 patent, referencing the same product features and visual evidence.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body; | The Le Pirouette includes a body, or handle. | ¶32 | col. 2:1-2 |
| a cylinder extending from said body, said cylinder being rotatable relative to said body, said cylinder including a clamp... a heating element located within said cylinder; | The Le Pirouette includes a rotating barrel (cylinder) with a clamp and an internal heating element. | ¶33 | col. 2:2-19 |
| a rotatable rod affixed to and rotatable with said cylinder... supported by a bearing within said body that restrains lateral movement... and facilitates rotation... | The device allegedly contains a rotatable rod connected to the cylinder, extending into the body, and supported by a bearing. A teardown photograph is provided as evidence. | ¶34 | col. 2:65 - col. 3:12 |
| a first terminal disc being rotatably fixed relative to said cylinder, said first terminal disc including concentric annular electrical contacts; | The device is alleged to include a first terminal disc fixed to the cylinder with annular contacts, supported by a teardown image. | ¶35 | col. 2:6-12 |
| one of said annular electrical contacts on one of said terminal discs being bent upwardly and another... being a flat annular ring... said rotatable rod extending through centers of both said terminal discs... | The device allegedly has an electrical contact system matching the claimed structure, with one set of contacts bent and another flat. A teardown photograph illustrates the alleged components. | ¶¶36-37 | col. 2:25-30 |
| a motor connected to said rotatable rod to rotate said cylinder. | The Le Pirouette includes a motor connected to the rotatable rod to cause rotation of the barrel. | ¶38 | col. 2:50-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The core of the dispute may center on whether the internal components of the Le Pirouette have the exact structure claimed. The teardown photograph at paragraph 25, for instance, shows two ring-like components with wires, but the court will need to determine if one has contacts that are "bent upwardly" and the other has "flat annular rings" in the manner required by the claims.
- Scope Questions: The term "bearing" is claimed functionally as restraining lateral movement and facilitating rotation (’796 Patent, col. 4:1-3). The patent discloses bronze bushings in a cradle as an embodiment (’796 Patent, col. 2:60-63). A question for the court will be whether the component alleged to be a "bearing" in the accused device (Compl. ¶ 23) performs the claimed functions and falls within the proper construction of the term.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "contacts on one of said terminal discs are bent upwardly and contacts on other said contact disc are flat annular rings" (’796 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific structure of the electrical interface that allows power to be transmitted to the rotating heating element. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on the factual question of whether the accused product's contacts match this precise geometric and structural description.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "bent upwardly" does not require a specific angle or shape, so long as the contacts are not flat and are oriented to ensure a brushing connection.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly shows an embodiment where the contacts on the second terminal disc 44 "are each bent upwardly on opposite sides" (’796 Patent, col. 2:23-24; Fig. 4). A party could argue this embodiment limits the term to a specific configuration where contacts are bent in a particular manner to create a spring-like, multi-point connection.
The Term: "bearing"
Context and Importance: The claims require a "bearing" that both "restrains lateral movement" and "facilitate[s] rotation" of the rod. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what type of support structure meets the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "bearing" should be given its broad, ordinary meaning in mechanical engineering, covering any component that supports a moving part and reduces friction, without being limited to a specific type.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment comprising "low friction bronze" bushings (74) held in a "bushing cradle" (76) that are "spaced apart for stabilizing the rod" (’796 Patent, col. 2:60-64). A party could argue that these details inform the meaning of "bearing" and require a structure with similar stabilizing characteristics.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant's provision of "How To" instructions, "Operating Instructions" in product packaging, and "How to Use" videos that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶ 40).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that L'Ange was aware of both the '796 and '301 patents prior to the lawsuit "by virtue of at least a cease and desist letter" but continued its allegedly infringing activity (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 53). This alleged pre-suit knowledge is the basis for the claim of willful infringement and the request for enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the internal components of the accused Le Pirouette, as evidenced by teardown photographs, literally meet the specific structural and geometric limitations of the claims, particularly the requirement for one set of electrical contacts to be "bent upwardly" while the other consists of "flat annular rings"? The case may turn on a factual comparison of the accused device's construction against these precise claim recitations.
- A second key question will involve claim construction and scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "bearing"? The dispute will likely focus on whether the support structure within the Le Pirouette performs the claimed functions of restraining lateral movement and facilitating rotation in a manner consistent with the patent's disclosure, or if the disclosed bushing-and-cradle embodiment serves to narrow the term's scope.
- Finally, an evidentiary question will be the effect of the alleged pre-suit notice: Should the case proceed to damages, the existence and content of the alleged cease and desist letter will be critical in determining whether Defendant’s conduct rises to the level of willful infringement, which could expose it to enhanced damages.