DCT
8:25-cv-02074
CAO Group Inc v. Gurunanda LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CAO Group, Inc. (Utah)
- Defendant: GuruNanda, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: LAHTI HELFGOTT LLC
- Case Identification: 8:25-cv-02074, C.D. Cal., 09/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district where it manufactures, markets, and distributes the accused products, and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s teeth whitening strips infringe five patents related to peroxide gel compositions for dental bleaching devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns chemical compositions for dental whitening strips designed to be shelf-stable, flexible, and adhesive, seeking to improve upon prior art gels that were often messy, unstable, or brittle.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of three of the patents-in-suit via correspondence on September 5, 2023, nearly two years before filing suit. All five asserted patents are continuations stemming from the same parent application and share a substantively identical specification, which may streamline aspects of claim construction.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-02-08 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2010-01-01 | Plaintiff launches Sheer White! Teeth Whitening Strips products |
| 2014-01-01 | Plaintiff launches Lumist Advanced Teeth Whitening Strips |
| 2020-03-31 | U.S. Patent No. 10,603,259 issues |
| 2020-05-12 | U.S. Patent No. 10,646,419 issues |
| 2022-01-11 | U.S. Patent No. 11,219,582 issues |
| 2023-09-05 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding '259, '419, and '582 Patents |
| 2023-11-28 | U.S. Patent No. 11,826,444 issues |
| 2023-11-28 | U.S. Patent No. 11,826,445 issues |
| 2025-09-12 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,603,259 - “PEROXIDE GEL COMPOSITION”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in prior art teeth whitening technologies, including fluidic gels used in trays that were messy, difficult to keep in place, and easily diluted by saliva. More solidified prior art compositions were often inconvenient two-part systems or would crack and break when flexed. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25; ’259 Patent, col. 2:25-4:19).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a dental bleaching device comprising a flexible backing material coated with a specific dental composition. This composition uses thickening agents like Poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) to create a "gelatinous" and "visco-elastic" compound that is shelf-stable, can hold high concentrations of peroxide, and flexibly conforms to a user's teeth without cracking, exhibiting a consistency similar to "gummi worms." (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27; ’259 Patent, col. 8:16-24).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled the creation of a convenient, single-part, shelf-stable whitening strip that adheres well to teeth while delivering a higher concentration of the active bleaching agent than was previously feasible in similar product formats. (Compl. ¶26; ’259 Patent, col. 6:28-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 73).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A dental bleaching device with a dental composition on a flexible, water-insoluble backing strip.
- The device is packaged.
- The composition comprises a peroxide bleaching agent, water as a first solvent, and a thickening agent of at least poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) or polyvinylpyrrolidone.
- The thickening agent is included in an amount "more by weight" than the water.
- The composition is dried after application to the strip.
- The composition is "gelatinous and viscoelastic" after drying, during storage (up to six months), after removal from the package, and when positioned on teeth.
- The composition has physical deformation properties allowing it to bend and conform to teeth while remaining on the strip.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶73).
U.S. Patent No. 10,646,419 - “PEROXIDE GEL COMPOSITIONS”
The Invention Explained
- The complaint notes that the '419 Patent stems from the same parent application as the '259 Patent and that their specifications are "substantively identical." (Compl. ¶34).
- Problem Addressed: The technical problems are identical to those described for the ’259 Patent. (Compl. ¶34; ’419 Patent, col. 2:25-4:19).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is identical to that of the ’259 Patent, involving a flexible strip with a gelatinous, viscoelastic peroxide composition. (Compl. ¶34; ’419 Patent, col. 8:16-24).
- Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the ’259 Patent. (Compl. ¶34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 80, 88).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A dental bleaching device with a flexible, planar backing strip having two flat sides.
- A dental composition on one flat side, covering "substantially all" of that side.
- The composition comprises a peroxide bleaching agent, water, and a thickening agent of at least poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) or polyvinylpyrrolidone.
- The composition is dried after application to the strip.
- The composition is "gelatinous and viscoelastic" after drying, during storage (up to six months), and after removal from the package.
- The composition has physical deformation properties allowing it to bend and conform to teeth.
- The composition has "adhesive properties" allowing it to adhere to teeth.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶88).
U.S. Patent No. 11,219,582 - “PEROXIDE GEL COMPOSITION”
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for a teeth whitening strip that avoids the messiness of prior art gels and the brittleness of prior art solids. The solution is a flexible strip with a dried, "gelatinous, non-coalescent, and visco-elastic" peroxide composition that conforms to teeth without cracking. (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 101; ’582 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 95, 102).
- Accused Features: The GuruNanda Whitening Strips are accused of infringing by allegedly incorporating a flexible backing and a gelatinous, non-coalescent, and visco-elastic dental composition. (Compl. ¶¶ 96-101).
U.S. Patent No. 11,826,444 - “PEROXIDE GEL COMPOSITION”
- Technology Synopsis: The patent concerns a dental whitening device with a flexible backing strip and a conjoined "gelatinous, non-coalescent, visco-elastic, dental composition." This composition is designed to flex and conform to a user's dental arch without cracking or breaking. (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 112, 114; ’444 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 109, 115).
- Accused Features: The GuruNanda Whitening Strips are accused of infringing by allegedly having a gelatinous, non-coalescent, and visco-elastic composition that adheres to a user's teeth. (Compl. ¶¶ 110-114).
U.S. Patent No. 11,826,445 - “PEROXIDE GEL COMPOSITION”
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a dental whitening device with a "gelatinous, non-coalescent, visco-elastic, dental composition" on a flexible backing material. The invention is designed to adhere to teeth and conform to the dental arch without cracking upon application. (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 124, 126; ’445 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 121, 127).
- Accused Features: The GuruNanda Whitening Strips are accused of infringing by allegedly embodying the claimed flexible strip and gelatinous, visco-elastic composition. (Compl. ¶¶ 122-126).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "GuruNanda Whitening Strips," which include the "Guru Nanda Premium Whitening Strips," "Mentadent Whitening Strips with Coconut Oil," and "Sig-nature Whitening Strips." (Compl. ¶¶ 57-58).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are teeth whitening strips advertised as having a "dry-strip formula" that "combines hydrogen peroxide with soothing coconut extracts." (Compl. ¶59). The product labels allegedly list ingredients including "PVP K30," "PVP K90," "Water," and "Hydrogen peroxide." (Compl. ¶63). They are marketed as having "high-strength adhesion" that allows them to remain on the teeth for up to two hours "without falling or shifting," even while drinking water or exercising. (Compl. ¶¶ 60-61). User instructions direct applying the "sticky gel side" of the strip against the teeth and applying pressure to "mold strip securely to the teeth." (Compl. ¶62).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,603,259 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a dental bleaching device comprising a dental composition on a strip of backing material, wherein the strip of backing material is flexible and insoluble in water | The accused products are teeth whitening strips that include a dental composition on a thin, flexible, water-insoluble backing material. | ¶¶66, 67 | col. 8:4-6 |
| wherein the dental bleaching device is packaged in a package | The accused products are shipped and stored in packaging. The complaint provides a photograph of the accused Sig-nature Whitening Strips product box and individually wrapped strips. (Compl. p. 17). | ¶68 | col. 6:59-62 |
| wherein the dental composition...comprises a peroxide bleaching agent, a first solvent, and a thickening agent; wherein the first solvent is water; wherein the thickening agent comprises...polyvinylpyrrolidone | The accused products' ingredient list allegedly includes hydrogen peroxide (peroxide bleaching agent), water (first solvent), and PVP (polyvinylpyrrolidone, a thickening agent). | ¶69 | col. 8:67-9:8 |
| wherein...the thickening agent is included in an amount more by weight of the dental composition than the water | The complaint alleges that the order of ingredients listed on the accused products' packaging, which lists "PVP K30" and "PVP K90" before "Water," indicates that PVP is present in a greater amount by weight, consistent with cosmetic labeling regulations. | ¶70 | col. 8:60-64 |
| wherein the dental composition is gelatinous and viscoelastic...after the dental composition has been applied on the backing material and dried...and when the dental composition is flexibly positioned on teeth | The complaint alleges the accused composition is gelatinous and viscoelastic, supported by visual evidence. One image shows the composition deforming under pressure from a glass capillary and exhibiting elasticity upon retraction. (Compl. p. 18). Another shows the strips not coalescing after 27 hours in a vial, allegedly satisfying the patent's specific definition of "gelatinous." (Compl. p. 19). | ¶71 | col. 5:49-6:3 |
| wherein the dental composition has physical deformation properties such that...the dental composition may be positioned on surfaces of adjacent teeth...bend and conform...and remain on the strip...during use | The accused strips allegedly possess the claimed deformation properties, as evidenced by product instructions to "apply gentle pressure to mold and strip securely to the teeth." | ¶72 | col. 8:16-24 |
10,646,419 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a strip of backing material, wherein the strip of backing material is flexible and planar such that the strip of backing material has two flat sides | The accused products allegedly have a flexible strip backing material with two flat sides. A photograph of the accused strips is provided as evidence. (Compl. p. 22). | ¶82 | col. 10:57-59 |
| a dental composition on one of the flat sides...such that at least substantially all of one side of the backing material is covered solely by the dental composition | The "sticky gel side" of the accused strip allegedly contains the dental composition throughout the entire side, with nothing other than the composition on that side. | ¶83 | col. 8:4-6 |
| wherein the dental composition...comprises a peroxide bleaching agent, a first solvent, and a thickening agent; wherein the first solvent is water; wherein the thickening agent comprises...polyvinylpyrrolidone | As alleged for the '259 Patent, the accused products' ingredient list includes hydrogen peroxide, water, and PVP. | ¶84 | col. 8:67-9:8 |
| wherein the dental composition is gelatinous and viscoelastic...after the dental composition has been applied on the backing material and dried | The complaint alleges the accused composition is gelatinous and viscoelastic, incorporating by reference its prior allegations and photographic evidence for the '259 Patent. | ¶85 | col. 5:49-6:3 |
| wherein the dental composition has adhesive properties such that...the dental composition will adhere to surfaces of adjacent teeth in a dental arch | The accused products are alleged to have the claimed adhesive properties, as shown by package instructions and marketing claims of "up to 2 hours of high-strength adhesion." | ¶87 | col. 8:25-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' "dry-strip formula" (Compl. ¶59) meets the patent's specific definition of "gelatinous," which requires the material to be a "visco-elastic compound having physical deformation properties between a solid and a fluid" that does not "coalesce." (’259 Patent, col. 5:52-66). The dispute may focus on whether the accused product functions as a flexible solid or as the claimed intermediate gelatinous material.
- Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over the relative weight of ingredients. The complaint's allegation that the thickening agent (PVP) outweighs water is based on an inference from the order of ingredients on the product label pursuant to cosmetic regulations. (Compl. ¶70). This may require extrinsic evidence and testing to resolve.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "gelatinous"
Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the physical nature of the claimed invention and appears in the independent claims of all five asserted patents. The infringement case for each patent may turn on whether the accused "dry-strip formula" can be properly characterized as "gelatinous" under the definition provided in the shared patent specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides a dictionary definition: "resembling gelatin, viscous." (’259 Patent, col. 5:51-52). This could support an argument for a general, commonly understood meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification immediately follows the dictionary definition with a detailed, specific definition crafted "For purposes of this Application." It defines a gelatinous compound as a "visco-elastic compound" that "will have some degree of flex and deformation... but will not coalesce so that a specific sample or portions thereof are still determinable." (’259 Patent, col. 5:52-66). This explicit, limiting definition provided by the patentee is strong evidence for a narrower construction.
The Term: "viscoelastic"
Context and Importance: This term, used in conjunction with "gelatinous," describes the required physical behavior of the dental composition. The complaint provides photographic evidence purporting to show the viscoelastic nature of the accused product, indicating its centrality to the infringement theory. (Compl. p. 18).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself has a well-understood technical meaning in materials science—exhibiting both viscous (fluid-like) and elastic (solid-like) characteristics when deformed. Parties may argue this plain meaning should control.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides context by describing the resultant compound as having "flexibility and consistency similar to the popular confection known as gummi worms" and the ability to "deform when removed from the backing material" and "flex and conform to a user's dental arch without cracking or breaking." (’259 Patent, col. 8:16-24; ’419 Patent, col. 8:16-24). This descriptive language could be used to argue that the term is limited to a specific type or degree of viscoelastic behavior.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges that Defendant provides instructions telling users to "apply gentle pressure to mold and strip securely to the teeth," which allegedly constitutes performance of a claimed step. (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 72). These allegations may form a basis for a claim of induced infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both actual and constructive notice. It alleges Defendant received actual notice of the '259, '419, and '582 patents via a letter sent by Plaintiff on September 5, 2023. (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 74, 89, 103). For all five patents, willfulness is also alleged based on notice from the filing of the complaint and constructive notice from Plaintiff's marking of its own patented products. (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 90, 104, 116, 128).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical characterization: does the accused "dry-strip formula" possess the specific "gelatinous" properties required by the claims, particularly in light of the detailed, patentee-provided definition of "gelatinous" in the common specification which requires the material to not coalesce?
- An evidentiary question will be one of compositional proof: what evidence, beyond an inference from cosmetic ingredient labeling, will establish that the accused products contain "more by weight" of the thickening agent than water, a specific limitation required by Claim 1 of the lead '259 Patent?
- A third question will relate to damages and willfulness: assuming infringement is found, what is the impact of the September 5, 2023 notice letter on the timeline for willful infringement and the calculation of potential damages for the three patents identified in that letter?