DCT
5:24-cv-00255
Beauty Union Global Ltd v. Creed Boutique LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Beauty Union Global Limited (Hong Kong)
- Defendant: Creed Boutique, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00255, N.D. Cal., 01/15/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, specifically the "Creed Boutique Valley Fair" retail store in Santa Clara, California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s refillable travel perfume atomizers infringe a patent related to a mechanism for refilling a small dispenser from a larger, pressurized spray bottle.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, travel-sized perfume dispensers designed for easy, spill-free refilling directly from standard consumer perfume bottles.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant, through its manager Ms. Roser Ruiz, contacted Plaintiff’s exclusive licensee (Genie-S) in February 2023 to source the patented atomizers. After failing to reach an agreement, Defendant allegedly proceeded to source and sell unauthorized, infringing atomizers. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-04-20 | ’388 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-04-18 | ’388 Patent PCT Application Filed |
| 2011-12-20 | ’388 Patent Issued |
| 2023-02-06 | Defendant’s manager allegedly contacted Plaintiff's licensee |
| 2023-02-13 | Defendant’s manager allegedly sent email acknowledging refill mechanism |
| 2023-02-22 | Plaintiff’s counsel purchased an Accused Device |
| 2024-01-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,079,388 - "refill perfume bottle" (Issued Dec. 20, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inconvenience and risk of carrying large, expensive perfume bottles during travel and the difficulty of refilling smaller travel bottles from them, which often leads to spillage of the costly liquid (’388 Patent, col. 1:10-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a small, portable bottle featuring a one-way check valve at its base. This valve is designed to mate with the exposed nozzle stem of a standard perfume bottle, allowing the user to pump perfume directly into the portable bottle for a spill-free refill. The liquid is then dispensed from a conventional vaporizer mechanism at the top of the portable bottle (’388 Patent, col. 3:31-38; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This design sought to eliminate the need for funnels or other intermediate tools, providing a self-contained and efficient method for transferring perfume between containers, a long-felt need for travelers (’388 Patent, col. 2:54-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A body with an upper portion (first opening) and a bottom portion (second opening).
- A vaporizer mechanism at the first opening for dispensing the liquid, comprising a tube, a pump, and a nozzle.
- A refill mechanism at the second opening comprising a check valve.
- The check valve is functionally defined as being "adapted to receive the stem of the bottle so that when the stem is pushed through the check valve, the check valve is open to and receives the non-compressible liquid... and when the stem is withdrawn from the check valve, the check valve is closed to prevent leakage."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "CREED Blue Leather Refillable Perfume Atomizer" (the "Accused Device") (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Device is a portable liquid dispenser sold for use with perfumes (Compl. ¶26). Its alleged functionality, based on a review of the physical product, includes a transparent inner body, an upper vaporizer with a pump and nozzle for spraying liquid, and a bottom refill mechanism containing a check valve (Compl. ¶26). The complaint includes a photograph of the Accused Device disassembled, showing a body with an opening at the upper and bottom portions (Compl. p. 8, Fig. 2). The device is allegedly sold through Defendant's own boutiques and website, as well as through major department store retailers like Dillard's, Bloomingdale's, and Nordstrom (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’388 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a portable refillable non compressible liquid dispenser... consisting of a body having an upper portion with a first opening and a bottom portion with a second opening, | The Accused Device is a portable, refillable liquid dispenser with a transparent body, an upper portion with a first opening, and a bottom portion with a second opening. | ¶26 | col. 4:26-34 |
| wherein the first opening has a vaporizer mechanism for dispensing non-compressible liquid... comprising a tube positioned within the dispenser, a pump communicating with the tube, and a nozzle communicating with the pump... | The upper portion of the Accused Device has a vaporizer mechanism, shown to include a tube, pump, and nozzle. The complaint includes a photograph of the vaporizer mechanism disassembled from the body (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 5). | ¶26 | col. 4:35-38 |
| wherein the second opening has a refill mechanism comprising a check valve adapted to receive the stem of the bottle so that when the stem is pushed through the check valve, the check valve is open to and receives the non-compressible liquid... | The bottom portion of the Accused Device has a refill mechanism with a check valve that opens when a stem is pushed through. The complaint includes a photograph of the check valve in the open position (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 8d). | ¶26 | col. 4:39-49 |
| and when the stem is withdrawn from the check valve, the check valve is closed to prevent leakage of the non-compressible liquid. | When the stem is withdrawn, the check valve closes to prevent leakage. The complaint includes a photograph illustrating this function (Compl. p. 10, Fig. 12). | ¶26 | col. 4:46-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: While the complaint provides detailed photographic evidence mapping the Accused Device to the claim elements, a central dispute may involve the specific operational characteristics of the accused "check valve." A key question will be one of evidentiary proof: does the accused valve function exactly as claimed, specifically in its ability to "prevent leakage" when the stem is withdrawn? Defendant may argue that its valve operates differently or does not meet the functional requirements of being "closed to prevent leakage" as strictly defined by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "check valve"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the invention and the infringement claim. The definition of what constitutes a "check valve" under the patent will be critical. The dispute will likely center on whether the specific one-way valve in the Accused Device meets the functional limitations recited in the claim for opening to receive liquid and closing to prevent leakage.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the element functionally, as a "check valve 32 allowing fluid to be inserted into the bottle without the ability to leak out through refill mechanism 30" (’388 Patent, col. 3:33-36). This functional language may support an interpretation that covers any valve structure performing this one-way refill function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claims require the check valve to be "closed to prevent leakage of the non-compressible liquid" (’388 Patent, col. 4:48-49). A defendant could argue this implies a complete or near-complete seal, and that any demonstrable leakage from its own device means the limitation is not met. The term itself is not given a special definition, suggesting it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by its distributors, retailers, and manufacturers (Compl. ¶36). The claim of intent is supported by allegations that a Creed manager, Ms. Roser Ruiz, contacted Plaintiff’s licensee to source the patented product, visited the licensee's website, and was aware of the product's refill functionality, thereby establishing knowledge of the patent and the infringing nature of the unauthorized product (Compl. ¶37).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on the same facts as inducement. The complaint posits that after Defendant's attempt to source authorized products from Plaintiff's licensee failed, it "intentionally and willfully infringed Plaintiff's patent rights by sourcing and selling unauthorized atomizers" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: can Plaintiff prove that the accused "check valve" in Defendant's product performs the exact functions required by Claim 1—specifically, that upon withdrawal of a refill stem, it is "closed to prevent leakage"? The case may turn on testing and expert testimony regarding the sealing capability of the accused valve.
A central issue for damages will be willfulness: can Plaintiff substantiate its allegations that Defendant, through its manager's interactions with Plaintiff's licensee, possessed pre-suit knowledge of the ’388 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused Device? The outcome of this question will determine the availability of enhanced damages.