DCT
2:26-cv-00458
Luxury Brands LLC v. Bounce Curl LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Luxury Brands, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona) and MERIAN ODESHO (Arizona)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buchalter LLP
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00458, C.D. Cal., 01/15/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because a substantial part of the events occurred in the district, the Plaintiff resides there, and Defendants sell the accused products to consumers in the district via their website and local stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "UNbrush Curl" hairbrush does not infringe and that Defendants' three asserted patents—one utility and two design—are invalid, alongside claims of tortious interference.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the market for specialized hairbrushes, particularly those designed to style and define curly hair by enhancing curl patterns and reducing frizz.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was precipitated by Defendants' public allegations of infringement made on social media platforms. Defendants accused Plaintiff of copying their patented designs, instructed followers on how to report Plaintiff's product as counterfeit, and contacted online retailers to have the product removed. These actions form the basis for the "actual controversy" required for a declaratory judgment suit and also support Plaintiff's tortious interference claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-06-01 | Plaintiff's original "UNbrush" product released |
| 2023-07-28 | Earliest Priority Date for '527, '357, and '393 Patents |
| 2024-05-28 | U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 ('527 Patent) issues |
| 2025-04-15 | U.S. Patent No. D1,070,357 ('357 Patent) issues |
| 2025-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 12,433,393 ('393 Patent) issues |
| 2026-01-09 | Plaintiff's "UNbrush Curl" product released |
| 2026-01-15 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,433,393 - *"Hair Brush"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,433,393, "Hair Brush," issued October 7, 2025 (’393 Patent).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional styling brushes for curly hair can often increase frizz and reduce hair volume and definition, requiring multiple devices to achieve a desired style (ʼ393 Patent, col. 1:31-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a hairbrush designed to solve this problem by incorporating "a plurality of channels disposed along at least one side of the brush head" ('393 Patent, col. 1:59-62). As depicted in Figure 1, these channels, defined by a series of "teeth," are intended to separate and smooth hair during brushing, which the patent asserts enhances waves and curls while eliminating frizz ('393 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:8-12). The brush head holds a bristle pad, and the handle may feature a tapered end for parting hair ('393 Patent, col. 9:13-17).
- Technical Importance: The design integrates the functions of detangling (bristles) and curl definition (side channels) into a single tool, aiming to simplify the styling process for individuals with curly hair.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 12, 13, and 21 as being at issue (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- A brush head.
- A first plurality of teeth disposed along a first side of the brush head.
- A first plurality of channels extending inwardly from the first tooth tips by a distance of 5.0 to 8.0 mm.
- A second plurality of teeth disposed along a second, opposing side of the brush head.
- A second plurality of channels extending inwardly from the second tooth tips.
- A predetermined depth for the channels that extends from the top surface through the bottom surface of the brush head.
- A channel length of 9 to 11 millimeters between adjacent first tooth tips.
U.S. Patent No. D1,070,357 - *"Hair Brush"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,070,357, "Hair Brush," issued April 15, 2025 (’357 Patent).
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture. This patent does not describe a technical problem.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a hairbrush as depicted in its figures ('357 Patent, "CLAIM"). A critical feature of this patent is the use of broken lines to illustrate the handle, which indicates that the handle is not part of the claimed design (Compl. ¶24). The protected design, therefore, consists only of the brush head, including its specific bristle pattern, shape, and the ridged or channeled features on its sides, as shown in solid lines in Figure 1 of the patent (Compl. p. 9).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design provides a specific aesthetic for a hairbrush head intended for styling curly hair.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for the hair brush as shown and described."
U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 - *"Hair Brush"*
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527, "Hair Brush," issued May 28, 2024 (’527 Patent).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for an entire hairbrush. Unlike the ’357 Patent, the figures in the ’527 Patent are drawn in solid lines, meaning the design of the handle is included as part of the protected ornamental design (Compl. ¶21; Compl. p. 8).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described."
- Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges its UNbrush Curl does not infringe because it lacks the claimed "third set of teeth along a third edge," does not have a "tapered handle," and does not have "evenly sized bristle holes" (Compl. ¶66).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "UNbrush Curl" hairbrush, released by Plaintiff through its FHI Heat brand (Compl. ¶16, 17).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the UNbrush Curl as building upon Plaintiff's successful "UNbrush" product by including similar features like "DuoFlex™ bristles, backless vented cushion, and ultra-lightweight handle" (Compl. ¶17). To this, it "adds new features primarily on the side of the brush specific for curly hair users" (Compl. ¶17). A photograph of the pink UNbrush Curl is provided in the complaint, showing its overall shape, bristle arrangement, and side features (Compl. p. 6, ¶17). The product was released to "great acclaim and immediate success" (Compl. ¶16). The dispute arose after Defendants began a social media campaign alleging that the UNbrush Curl copied their patented designs (Compl. ¶33-34). A screenshot from this campaign shows a user stating, "Unbrush copied your ridges" (Compl. p. 12, ¶34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’393 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element analysis of non-infringement. Instead, it makes a targeted allegation that its product lacks a "third plurality of teeth along a third edge of the brush," a feature required by independent claims 12 and 21 (Compl. ¶46). The complaint does not specifically address how the UNbrush Curl avoids the elements of independent claim 1. The following chart outlines the elements of claim 1, which will be a central point of dispute.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (Plaintiff's UNbrush Curl) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first plurality of teeth disposed along a first side of the brush head | The UNbrush Curl includes "new features primarily on the side of the brush" for styling curly hair. | ¶17 | col. 11:7-9 |
| a first plurality of channels extending inwardly in a first direction from the first tooth tips... by a distance of 5.0 to 8.0 mm | The side features of the UNbrush Curl create separations or channels. | ¶17 | col. 11:10-14 |
| a second plurality of teeth disposed along a second side of a brush head | The UNbrush Curl has features on its opposing side. | ¶17 | col. 11:15-17 |
| wherein each of the first plurality of channels has a channel length defined by the distance between two adjacent first tooth tips of 9 to 11 millimeters | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific dimensions of the UNbrush Curl's side features. | — | col. 11:27-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue for certain claims (e.g., 12 and 21) will be factual: does the UNbrush Curl possess a "third plurality of teeth" on a "third edge," as Plaintiff explicitly denies? (Compl. ¶46). For claim 1, the dispute may focus on whether the "new features" on the side of the UNbrush Curl constitute a "plurality of teeth" and "channels" within the meaning of the patent.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the specific dimensions of the UNbrush Curl's side features—such as channel depth, length, and inward extension—fall within the ranges recited in the asserted claims. The complaint does not provide these measurements.
’357 Patent Infringement Allegations
Plaintiff seeks a declaration of non-infringement of the ’357 design patent. The complaint alleges specific visual differences between the UNbrush Curl and the patented design, arguing it does not have a "third set of teeth along a third edge" and does not have "evenly sized bristle holes" (Compl. ¶56). The infringement analysis for a design patent centers on the "ordinary observer" test, comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product to the patented design. The complaint references an "Exhibit X" containing a visual comparison, but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶56).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central question is whether an ordinary observer would find the overall design of the UNbrush Curl's head to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the '357 Patent. Because the '357 Patent disclaims the handle, the comparison will focus exclusively on the head of the brush, potentially broadening the patent's scope compared to a design that includes the handle.
- Invalidity Questions: Plaintiff argues that the "teeth and channels" are functional features and therefore the design patent is invalid for protecting functionality (Compl. ¶61). This raises the question of whether the claimed design is "primarily ornamental" or "primarily functional." Defendant Odesho's social media posts, which Plaintiff may characterize as touting the utility of the side features, could be used as evidence on this point. A screenshot shows a user commenting on the "edge design" as "definitely ingenious" from a functional perspective (Compl. p. 15, ¶37).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’393 Patent
- The Term: "plurality of teeth"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to all asserted independent claims. The definition will determine whether the "new features" on the sides of the UNbrush Curl (Compl. ¶17) fall within the scope of the claims. Plaintiff may argue its side features are stylistically different and do not constitute "teeth" as contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not provide an explicit definition of "teeth," which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "teeth" as specific, uniform, U-shaped protrusions that define the channels (e.g., '393 Patent, Figs. 1, 6). Defendants would likely argue that these consistent depictions define the term, limiting it to the structures shown in the preferred embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts related to indirect infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action focused on Plaintiff's own conduct.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not at issue, as Plaintiff is the accused infringer. However, Plaintiff requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle it to attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶6). This request is likely based on Defendants' alleged conduct, including making public infringement accusations on social media and reporting the UNbrush Curl to online retailers, which Plaintiff characterizes as "fraudulent claims of infringement" intended to disrupt its business (Compl. ¶34, 42, 77).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A central issue will be Plaintiff's invalidity challenge to the '527 and '357 design patents. The case will require the court to determine whether the defining side-channel features of the brush are primarily functional—as suggested by the '393 utility patent's description of their purpose—or if they possess an ornamental quality that is protectable by a design patent.
Definitional Scope: For the '393 utility patent, the outcome will likely depend on claim construction. The court must decide whether the term "teeth," as described and depicted in the patent, can be construed to read on the specific side features of the UNbrush Curl.
Design Scope and the Ordinary Observer: For the '357 and '527 design patents, a key question will be whether the overall visual appearance of the UNbrush Curl is substantially similar to the claimed designs. The analysis will be nuanced by the different scopes of the two design patents: the '357 patent covers only the brush head, while the '527 patent covers the brush as a whole, including the handle.