DCT

2:24-cv-04711

Proctor & Gamble Co v. Squatch

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-04711, C.D. Cal., 06/05/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant, Dr. Squatch, LLC, resides in the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s aluminum-free deodorant stick products infringe five patents related to deodorant chemical compositions and physical properties.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns chemical formulations for solid deodorant sticks that are free of aluminum salts and aim to use natural ingredients while maintaining desirable physical characteristics for consumer application.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement for all five asserted patents. Notice for three patents was allegedly provided via letter on November 1, 2022, with notice for the two most recently issued patents provided via email on October 3, 2023, and December 21, 2023, respectively. These allegations of actual knowledge may form the basis for the complaint’s willful infringement claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-06-30 Earliest Priority Date ('752, '999, '706, '647, '915 Patents)
2021-02-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,905,647 Issues
2021-04-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,966,915 Issues
2022-11-01 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of '915, '647, '706 Patents
2022-11-15 U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706 Issues
2023-01-03 U.S. Patent No. 11,540,999 Issues
2023-10-03 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of '999 Patent
2023-12-19 U.S. Patent No. 11,844,752 Issues
2023-12-21 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement of '752 Patent
2024-06-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,844,752 - "Deodorant Compositions," issued December 19, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of formulating an aluminum-free and mostly silicone-free deodorant stick. Such formulations often rely on natural oils or triglycerides, but can result in a product that is too hard for a comfortable application, or is undesirably greasy. (’915 Patent, col. 1:17-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific deodorant stick formulation that balances a particular structurant (stearyl alcohol) with other components to achieve a specific, desirable hardness range. The formulation is also anhydrous and substantially free of silicones, addressing consumer preferences for "natural" products without sacrificing the physical feel and application experience. (’915 Patent, col. 3:1-15, col. 4:26-40).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed formulation provides a technical solution for creating deodorant products that meet consumer demand for aluminum-free compositions while maintaining the product aesthetics and physical performance (e.g., glide, softness) of more conventional formulations. (’915 Patent, col. 1:21-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A deodorant stick comprising:
    • at least one antimicrobial; and
    • a structurant that is stearyl alcohol;
    • said stick being free of an aluminum salt; and
    • said stick having a hardness from about 80 mm10 to about 140 m10, as measured by penetration with ASTM D-1321 needle;
    • wherein the deodorant stick is anhydrous and is substantially free of silicones.

U.S. Patent No. 11,540,999 - "Deodorant Compositions," issued January 3, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, part of the same family as the ’752 Patent, addresses the same technical problem: creating an aluminum-free deodorant stick that is not too hard for comfortable consumer use. (’999 Patent, col. 1:17-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a deodorant stick composition defined by a combination of a specific antimicrobial agent (magnesium hydroxide) and a "primary structurant" having a melting point of at least 50° C. This combination is designed to produce a stick that is free of aluminum salt and falls within a specified hardness range, providing a good consumer experience. (’999 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention targets the growing market for natural deodorants by providing a formulation that uses a specific, non-aluminum antimicrobial while controlling the product's physical hardness to ensure acceptable application characteristics. (’999 Patent, col. 1:21-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A deodorant stick comprising:
    • at least one antimicrobial comprising magnesium hydroxide; and
    • a primary structurant with a melting point of at least about 50° C.; and
    • said stick being free of an aluminum salt; and
    • said stick having a hardness from about 80 mm10 to about 140 mm10, as measured by penetration with ASTM D-1321 needle.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11497706, "Antiperspirant and Deodorant Compositions," issued November 15, 2022 (Compl. ¶10).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a deodorant stick formulation addressing the need for stable, low-irritation, aluminum-free products. The claimed solution centers on a composition comprising a high concentration (at least about 25% by weight) of liquid triglyceride combined with a primary antimicrobial, while being free of aluminum salts. (’706 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:11-39).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are deodorant sticks containing at least about 25% by weight liquid triglyceride, a primary antimicrobial, and are free of an aluminum salt (Compl. ¶¶40-43).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,905,647

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10905647, "Antiperspirant and Deodorant Compositions," issued February 2, 2021 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to solving stability and irritation issues in natural deodorants. The claimed invention is a specific formulation comprising at least 25% liquid triglyceride, an antimicrobial with low water solubility, a fragrance made of at least 50% natural or essential oils, and a primary structurant with a melting point over 50° C, all within a specified hardness range. (’647 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:11-39).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain the claimed percentages of triglyceride, a primary antimicrobial, a fragrance composition, and a structurant, and are free of aluminum salt (Compl. ¶¶47-51).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,966,915

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10966915, "Deodorant Compositions," issued April 6, 2021 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical challenge of creating aluminum-free deodorant sticks that are not too hard. The claimed solution is a composition containing at least 25% liquid triglyceride, an antimicrobial, and a primary structurant with a melting point of at least 50° C., while being free of an aluminum salt. (’915 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:17-38).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products are deodorant sticks containing the claimed amount of triglyceride, an antimicrobial, a qualifying primary structurant, and are free of aluminum salt (Compl. ¶¶55-59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant’s aluminum-free deodorant stick products, including but not limited to Sticc of the Dead, Wood Barrel Bourbon, Coconut Castaway, Fresh Falls, Pine Tar, Birchwood Breeze, Alpine Sage, Bay Rum, Rainforest Rapids, Pine Tar, Cool Fresh Aloe, and Summer Citrus (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are solid stick deodorants marketed to consumers as "natural" and free of aluminum (Compl. ¶21; Fig. 2). The complaint provides a representative ingredient list for the "Fresh Falls" product, which includes caprylic/capric triglyceride, stearyl alcohol (a structurant), and magnesium hydroxide (an antimicrobial) (Compl. ¶16; Fig. 1). Marketing materials are cited to show the products are advertised as free of aluminum and silicones (Compl. ¶21-22; Fig. 2-3). Figure 2 from the complaint displays the product packaging for "Fresh Falls," which explicitly states "ALUMINUM FREE" (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 2). The complaint alleges that Defendant derives substantial revenue from the sale of these products throughout the United States (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'752 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A deodorant stick comprising: at least one antimicrobial; The Accused Products contain magnesium hydroxide, which functions as an antimicrobial. ¶19, ¶25 col. 7:1-9
and a structurant that is stearyl alcohol; The Accused Products' ingredient list includes "Stearyl Alcohol." ¶18, ¶26 col. 4:1-2
said stick being free of an aluminum salt; The Accused Products are advertised on their packaging as "ALUMINUM FREE." ¶21, ¶27 col. 3:32-33
said stick having a hardness from about 80 mm10 to about 140 m10, as measured by penetration with ASTM D-1321 needle; The complaint asserts that the Accused Products possess a hardness within this specified range. ¶28 col. 3:36-40
wherein the deodorant stick is anhydrous The Accused Products are alleged to be anhydrous based on the lack of "water" in the representative ingredient list. ¶20, ¶29 col. 3:51-56
and is substantially free of silicones. The Accused Products are advertised as not containing "harsh chemicals or synthetics like... silicones." ¶22, ¶30 col. 1:18-19

'999 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A deodorant stick comprising: at least one antimicrobial comprising magnesium hydroxide; The Accused Products' representative ingredient list identifies "Magnesium Hydroxide." ¶19, ¶34 col. 7:1-9
and a primary structurant with a melting point of at least about 50° C.; The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain a primary structurant with a melting point of at least about 50° Celsius. ¶35 col. 3:4-8
and said stick being free of an aluminum salt; The Accused Products are advertised and packaged as being free of aluminum. ¶21, ¶36 col. 3:32-33
and said stick having a hardness from about 80 mm10 to about 140 mm10, as measured by penetration with ASTM D-1321 needle. The complaint asserts that the Accused Products have a hardness that falls within this claimed range. ¶37 col. 3:36-40

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: A primary point of contention for both the ’752 and ’999 patents will likely be the "hardness" limitation. The complaint makes a conclusory assertion that the Accused Products meet the claimed quantitative range but provides no test data or other factual support for this allegation (Compl. ¶28, ¶37). The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence from testing, conducted according to the patent's specified ASTM method, showing the products meet this physical property limitation.
  • Scope Questions: For the ’999 Patent, a dispute may arise over the term "primary structurant." The complaint alleges this element is met but does not specify which ingredient serves this role or provide its melting point (Compl. ¶35). The ingredient list for the representative "Fresh Falls" product lists "Stearyl Alcohol" after "Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride" and "Manihot Esculenta (Arrowroot) Powder" (Compl. Fig. 1). This raises the question of whether stearyl alcohol is, in fact, the "primary" structurant under the patent's definition, which will be a key issue for claim construction and factual analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "hardness from about 80 mm10 to about 140 m10" (’752 and ’999 Patents)

    • Context and Importance: This quantitative physical property appears central to distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art formulations that were allegedly too hard for comfortable use. Infringement of both lead patents depends on whether the accused products fall within this specific numerical range. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's infringement allegation for this element is conclusory and lacks any supporting factual data.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "about" suggests the patentee did not intend the numerical endpoints to be absolute and that some deviation may be permissible.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly requires the hardness to be "as measured by penetration with ASTM D-1321 needle." The specification of the parent patent provides a detailed, multi-step procedure for conducting this specific test, suggesting an intent for this property to be a precise and objectively verifiable characteristic. (’915 Patent, col. 11:42 - col. 12:48).

  • The Term: "primary structurant" (’999 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: The identity of the "primary structurant" is critical because its melting point must be "at least about 50° C" to meet the claim limitation. Defendant may argue that an ingredient other than stearyl alcohol is the "primary structurant" and that this other ingredient does not meet the melting point requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "primary" refers to the most functionally important structurant for providing the stick's form, irrespective of its precise weight percentage relative to other solid components.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit definition: "A primary structurant may be the structurant that appears in the product in the highest amount (liquid triglycerides are not considered a structurant in this context)." (’999 Patent, col. 4:5-9). This provides a specific, weight-based definition that will likely govern the analysis, turning the issue into a factual determination of the accused product's quantitative formulation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of induced and contributory infringement for each asserted patent (Compl. ¶65, ¶79, ¶99, ¶109, ¶133). It also alleges vicarious liability for direct infringement based on Defendant's alleged control over at least one contract manufacturer that makes the Accused Products (Compl. ¶72-74).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual, pre-suit knowledge of all five asserted patents and their infringement. This allegation is supported by specific dates on which Plaintiff claims it sent notice letters and emails to Defendant’s CEO, with the earliest notice dating to November 1, 2022 (Compl. ¶61). These detailed allegations form a specific factual basis for the claims of deliberate and willful infringement (Compl. ¶70, ¶84, ¶104, ¶116, ¶128).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff develop factual evidence through discovery and testing, conforming to the specified ASTM standard, to demonstrate that Defendant's products possess the specific quantitative "hardness" recited in claims of the '752 and '999 patents? The complaint's current lack of factual support on this point makes it a central vulnerability in the infringement theory.
  • A key question of claim scope and fact will determine infringement of the '999 patent: applying the patent's explicit weight-based definition, what ingredient constitutes the "primary structurant" in the accused formulations, and does that ingredient possess a melting point of "at least about 50° C"?
  • The case will likely involve a significant focus on damages and intent, driven by the specific, dated allegations of pre-suit notice. A central question for the court will be whether Defendant's conduct after receiving notice of each patent constitutes willful infringement, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.