DCT
2:25-cv-01071
Kitsch LLC v. Dispensing Tech BV
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kitsch LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dispensing Technologies B.V. (Netherlands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Brooks Kushman P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01071, C.D. Cal., 02/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant, a foreign company, doing business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim allegedly occurring there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Kitsch LLC seeks a declaratory judgment that its continuous mist spray bottles do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,714,133, owned by Defendant Dispensing Technologies B.V.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on mechanical, trigger-operated spray bottles capable of producing a sustained, aerosol-like mist without the use of chemical propellants.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this declaratory judgment action was precipitated by a November 2024 cease-and-desist letter from the Defendant, followed by the Defendant’s January 2025 filing of a request for an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding to adjudicate the infringement claim and potentially delist the Plaintiff's products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-20 | '133 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-07-25 | '133 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-07-07 | Date of Defendant's letter to which Plaintiff responded (as stated in complaint) |
| 2024-11-07 | Defendant sent cease-and-desist letter to Plaintiff |
| 2024-11-27 | Plaintiff responded to Defendant's letter |
| 2025-01-20 | Defendant submitted request for Amazon APEX evaluation |
| 2025-02-07 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,714,133, "Metered and Active Sprayer Devices with Aerosol Functionality ('Flairosol II')", issued July 25, 2017.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the drawbacks of conventional liquid dispensers, noting that standard spray bottles require continuous pumping and that aerosol cans present environmental hazards and packaging complexities due to their use of propellants (’133 Patent, col. 1:30-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a liquid dispensing device that emulates an aerosol spray without propellants. It uses a trigger-actuated piston to pump liquid into an internal pressure chamber, which contains a spring-loaded pressure piston. This action stores mechanical energy in the spring, pressurizing the liquid. A specialized "dome valve" is located near the outlet nozzle, which only opens when the liquid reaches a preset pressure, ensuring a consistent, strong spray and preventing leaks when the pressure drops (’133 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). This pre-compression mechanism allows for a continuous spray as long as the user continues to pump the trigger intermittently (’133 Patent, col. 2:12-22).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for achieving a prolonged, fine mist spray, a feature typically associated with pressurized aerosol cans, using only a mechanical pump mechanism.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint’s non-infringement arguments focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’133 Patent recites:
- A liquid dispensing device, comprising: a pressure chamber and a dispensing head;
- said pressure chamber comprising a pressure spring and a pressure piston; and
- said dispensing head comprising: a piston and a piston chamber, a trigger operatively connected to the piston, a channel in fluid communication with the pressure chamber, a piston chamber outlet valve, an outlet valve, and an outlet channel.
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of all claims of the patent (Compl. p. 9, ¶a).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused product is the Kitsch "continuous mist spray bottle," which is sold through various retailers, including Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶9-10). The complaint includes an image of the accused product (Compl. p. 4).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Kitsch product is a trigger-operated spray bottle designed to deliver a continuous, fine mist of liquid (Compl. ¶9). The complaint asserts that Kitsch is a "leading accessories manufacturer" and that its products are sold in over 2,000 locations worldwide and through major retailers (Compl. ¶¶8, 13). The core of the Plaintiff's technical argument is that its spray bottle does not contain certain components required by the ’133 Patent’s claims, specifically a "dome valve" (Compl. ¶16). To support this, the complaint provides an exploded-view photograph of the components within its spray nozzle (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The Plaintiff's primary arguments, centered on Claim 1, are summarized below.
’133 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A liquid dispensing device, comprising: a pressure chamber and a dispensing head; | Plaintiff’s product is a liquid dispensing device with a spray head. | ¶9 | col. 5:10-14 |
| said pressure chamber comprising a pressure spring and a pressure piston; | The complaint does not contest the presence of these elements. | N/A | col. 5:35-43 |
| said dispensing head comprising: a piston and a piston chamber, a trigger operatively connected to the piston, a channel in fluid communication with the pressure chamber; | The complaint does not contest the presence of these elements. | N/A | col. 7:15-24 |
| a piston chamber outlet valve provided between said channel and said piston chamber; | The complaint does not specifically contest this element. | N/A | col. 7:18-20 |
| an outlet valve; | Plaintiff alleges its product lacks this element. The complaint argues that the patent’s disclosure limits the term "outlet valve" to mean a specific "dome valve" structure, which Plaintiff claims its product does not have. | ¶15-16 | col. 2:5-7 |
| an outlet channel, | The complaint does not specifically contest this element. | N/A | col. 2:6 |
| wherein the piston chamber outlet valve is arranged to be closed by fluid pressure in the channel and the pressure chamber. | The complaint does not specifically contest this element. | N/A | col. 7:25-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central dispute presented in the complaint concerns the scope of the term "an outlet valve." The complaint argues this term should be narrowly construed to require a "dome valve" as depicted in the patent's figures, such as those Kitsch includes from the patent in its filing (Compl. p. 6, Figs. 9 and 12). A primary legal question is whether the claim language is limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the components in the Kitsch bottle's nozzle, shown in an exploded view (Compl. p. 6), perform the function of the claimed "outlet valve," even if they are not structurally identical to the "dome valve" described in the ’133 Patent. The complaint alleges its product "does not include a deformable membrane or pressure chamber as required by the dome valve of claim 1" (Compl. ¶16).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "an outlet valve"
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the non-infringement argument articulated in the complaint. Plaintiff Kitsch contends its product lacks this element entirely (Compl. ¶17). The resolution of the case, as framed by the Plaintiff, may depend on whether the court adopts a narrow construction limited to the patent's specific embodiment, or a broader one encompassing other valve structures.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Defendant may argue that the claim language itself uses the general term "an outlet valve," not the more specific "dome valve." The claim also separately recites "a piston chamber outlet valve," which may suggest that "an outlet valve" is a second, distinct valve element whose structure is not limited by the claims.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Plaintiff argues that the only embodiment of an "outlet valve" disclosed in the patent specification is a "dome valve" (Compl. ¶15). Plaintiff may argue that the patentee, by exclusively describing and illustrating this structure, implicitly defined or limited the claim term to that embodiment (’133 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 6). The patent repeatedly refers to the "dome valve" as the component that provides the pre-compression function at the final outlet (’133 Patent, col. 2:5-12; col. 7:4-14).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all forms of infringement, including by inducement and contribution (Compl. ¶25). No specific facts related to these allegations are detailed beyond a general denial.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint notes that the Defendant’s November 7, 2024 cease-and-desist letter asserted that any continued sales by Kitsch "will undeniably be considered willful" and threatened to "pursue special damages" (Compl. ¶18). This allegation by the Defendant forms part of the basis for the "actual case or controversy" required for this declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of claim construction: Will the term "an outlet valve" in Claim 1 be limited to the specific "dome valve" structure described and depicted in the ’133 Patent’s specification, as the Plaintiff contends, or will it be given a broader, plain and ordinary meaning that could read on other types of valve mechanisms?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical comparison: Assuming the court adopts a construction for "an outlet valve," does the assembly of components in the accused Kitsch spray bottle (Compl. p. 6) meet the functional and structural requirements of that term, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation as the Plaintiff alleges?