DCT

3:18-cv-00823

Talavera Hair Products Inc v. Taizhou Yunsung Electrical Appliance Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00823, S.D. Cal., 04/30/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants purposefully direct commercial activities to consumers in the district via e-commerce platforms like Amazon and eBay, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electric hair trimmers infringe patents related to a device that selectively trims split ends from hair shafts without altering overall hair length.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates in the personal hair care market, addressing the common problem of removing damaged or split hair ends in a precise, automated fashion.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff filed a related intellectual property complaint against Defendant Taizhou in China in early 2016 and that it provided written notices of infringement to e-commerce platforms Amazon and eBay. These allegations may be used to support claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-04-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,588,108 and 7,040,021
2003-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 6588108 Issued
2006-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 7040021 Issued
2012-11-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,587,811
2016-01-01 Plaintiff filed IP complaint in China (approximate date)
2017-03-07 U.S. Patent No. 9587811 Issued
2017-06-01 Start of 11-month period for alleged damages (approximate date)
2018-04-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,588,108 - HAIR TRIMMING DEVICE WITH REMOVABLY MOUNTABLE COMPONENTS FOR REMOVAL OF SPLIT ENDS AND STYLING OF HAIR, Issued July 8, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the process of trimming split ends from hair as a tedious, time-consuming, and imprecise task, especially for individuals trying to trim their own hair, which can result in uneven cuts or the accidental removal of healthy, long hair strands (’108 Patent, col. 1:36-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hair trimming device that guides hair strands through a novel "serpentine path." As hair is pulled through this channel, longer strands remain held down, but the tension is momentarily released on the very distal ends of the hairs as they pass a central rounded structure, causing them to "flip up" through a slot and into a cutting blade. This mechanism selectively cuts only the ends of the hair shafts (’108 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:33-40).
  • Technical Importance: The device provides a mechanical and repeatable method for precisely removing a small, predetermined length from only the damaged ends of hair, automating a task previously reliant on manual skill (’108 Patent, col. 2:5-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts. Assuming assertion of the first independent claim:

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A body assembly with a handle and head mating end.
    • A motor mounted in the body assembly.
    • A cutting head assembly with a retainer cavity.
    • A slot in the retainer cavity that communicates with an interior cavity.
    • An elongated hair retainer that is rotatably mounted and can engage with the retainer cavity.
    • An activating lever to move the hair retainer between a raised and an operating position.
    • A cutter blade assembly mounted in the interior cavity and engaged with the motor.
    • The hair retainer and slot cooperate to form a "serpentine path" for guiding hair strands.
    • The slot allows distal ends of hair strands to "momentarily communicate" into the interior cavity to be cut by the cutting blade.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,040,021 - HAIR TRIMMING DEVICE WITH REMOVABLY MOUNTABLE COMPONENTS FOR REMOVAL OF SPLIT ENDS AND STYLING OF HAIR, Issued May 9, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ’108 Patent, notes limitations in prior art devices, including that they may be designed for only right-handed use and that hair guides may be suboptimal (’021 Patent, col. 3:1-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention refines the serpentine path concept with improvements such as a reversible motor and bi-directional cutting blades, allowing for ambidextrous use. It also discloses various modular and interchangeable components, such as different cutting head assemblies or faceplates, which permit a user to adjust the length of the hair ends being trimmed (’021 Patent, col. 4:1-14, 4:51-65).
  • Technical Importance: This technology increases the versatility and user-friendliness of the core invention by enabling ambidextrous operation and user-configurable trim-length adjustments.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts. Assuming assertion of the first independent claim:

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A body assembly with a handle end and a head end.
    • A motor mounted in the body assembly.
    • A cutting head assembly on the head end, having a face with a retainer cavity and an interior cavity.
    • A slot in the retainer cavity.
    • An elongated hair retainer.
    • Means to move the hair retainer between a raised and operating position.
    • A "serpentine path" formed between the retainer cavity and the hair retainer.
    • The slot allows distal ends of hair to enter the interior cavity.
    • "Means for cutting off portions" of the distal ends.
    • "Means to communicate mechanical power" from the motor to the cutting means.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,587,811 - LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE, Issued March 7, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a light emitting device (LED) that includes a flexible substrate. The invention focuses on curving the substrate to achieve a wider distribution of light and reduce the device's overall size, addressing challenges in designing products like replacements for straight-tube fluorescent lamps (’811 Patent, Abstract; Background). The complaint, however, identifies this patent as covering a "HAIR TRIMMING DEVICE" (Compl. ¶79c), presenting a direct conflict with the text of the patent document.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that defendants' hair trimmers infringe the ’811 patent (Compl. ¶80).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are electric hair trimmers sold under the brand names "FASIZ," "LESCOLTON," "UMATE," and "HAIR TRIMMER" (Compl. ¶80).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are "cheap copies of Plaintiff’s Split-Ender® hair trimmers" that "look nearly identical" to the genuine product and are "the same in all material respects," differing only in name, color, or handle grip design (Compl. ¶¶21, 21c, 81). The complaint alleges these products are sold on e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com and eBay.com at prices "well below the usual retail price of Plaintiff’s genuine patented products," causing Plaintiff significant financial harm (Compl. ¶¶12, 21f, 31-34). The complaint describes the contents of a visual from an exhibit showing the packaging for the accused "FASIZ" product (Compl. ¶44a, Ex. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations mapping specific product features to claim elements. The infringement theory is based on the general allegation that the accused products are "copies" of Plaintiff's patented product (Compl. ¶21). The following charts are based on this general theory and analyze the representative independent claim of each lead patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,588,108 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a hair trimming apparatus for trimming the distal ends of hair drawn therethrough The accused "FASIZ," "LESCOLTON," "UMATE," and "HAIR TRIMMER" products are alleged to be electric hair trimmers. ¶81 col. 10:5-7
a cutting head assembly... having a face with a retainer cavity formed therein; a slot located in said retainer cavity... The complaint alleges the accused products are infringing copies that look nearly identical to the patented product, which contains these features. ¶¶21c, 80 col. 3:20-25
an elongated hair retainer rotatably mounted... cooperatively engageable with said retainer cavity The complaint's theory of infringement relies on the accused products being functionally identical copies of the patented device. ¶¶21c, 80 col. 11:20-24
said elongated hair retainer when cooperatively engaged with said slot, forming a serpentine path for guiding hair strands The infringement allegation is predicated on the accused products being copies that incorporate the patented "Split-Ender" technology. ¶¶13, 21c col. 3:33-40
said slot allowing said distal ends of said hair strands... to momentarily communicate through said slot into said interior cavity; and said cutting blade positioned... to cut portions off said distal ends The complaint alleges the infringing products copy Plaintiff's patented product, which performs this function. The complaint also references a visual of the accused "FASIZ" manual which allegedly contains text identical to Plaintiff's manual describing the product's use. ¶¶13, 47a, Ex. 10 col. 8:30-38

U.S. Patent No. 7,040,021 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A hair trimming apparatus for trimming the distal ends of hair drawn therethrough The accused products are identified as hair trimmers that allegedly infringe the patent. ¶¶80, 81 col. 12:41-43
a cutting head assembly positioned upon said head end... having a face with a retainer cavity formed therein The complaint alleges the accused products are copies that infringe the '021 patent, which teaches this structure. ¶¶21c, 80 col. 12:50-54
a serpentine path formed between said retainer cavity and said hair retainer in said operating position The infringement claim is based on the accused products being copies that operate using the patented technology. ¶¶13, 21c col. 13:12-15
means for cutting off portions of said distal ends of said hair strands The complaint alleges Defendants make, use, and sell products that infringe the patent, which includes means for cutting hair. ¶¶21c, 80 col. 13:19-21

Identified Points of Contention

  • The '811 Patent: A threshold issue is the complaint's assertion of U.S. Patent No. 9,587,811. The patent document describes an LED lighting device, whereas the complaint alleges it covers a "Hair Trimming Device" and is infringed by hair trimmers (Compl. ¶¶79c, 80). This raises a fundamental question about the basis for this infringement claim.
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products are "copies" that "look nearly identical" to the patented product (Compl. ¶21c). The central factual dispute will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused devices actually contain the specific structures (e.g., the "retainer cavity," "elongated hair retainer") and perform the key functions (e.g., creating a "serpentine path" that causes distal ends to "flip up") as required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "serpentine path"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 of the ’108 patent and is central to the mechanism of both the ’108 and ’021 patents. Its definition is critical because it describes the core inventive concept for isolating and trimming split ends. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused devices' hair-guiding structures fall within the court's construction of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with a precise geometric or structural definition in the specification. A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any winding, snakelike, or non-linear channel that guides hair.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "serpentine path" in the context of a specific functional result: guiding hair over a central structure in a way that creates and then releases tension, causing the distal ends to "flip up" into the cutting blades (’108 Patent, col. 3:33-40). Practitioners may argue that the term should be limited to a structure that performs this specific function, not just any winding path.

  • The Term: "momentarily communicate through said slot into said interior cavity"

    • Context and Importance: This functional language from claim 1 of the ’108 patent describes the action of the hair ends entering the cutting area. Proving infringement requires showing that the accused device performs this specific function.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this phrase simply means the hair ends temporarily pass through an opening to be cut, without requiring any specific mechanism.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links this "communication" to the "flip up" action that occurs when tension is relieved on the distal ends (’108 Patent, col. 8:30-38). A defendant would likely argue that the term requires this specific physical phenomenon and cannot be read to cover a device where hair is simply fed into a generic cutting mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory infringement and inducement, stating Defendants infringe "either directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶80). The factual basis for inducement may rest on the allegation that Defendants sell products with instruction manuals that guide users to perform the infringing method, as the complaint alleges the accused manuals contain text "identical or substantially similar" to Plaintiff's (Compl. ¶47).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶83). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants had "notice of or knew of the ‘108, ‘021 and ‘811 patents" (Compl. ¶83). Factual support cited in the complaint includes an intellectual property complaint filed by Plaintiff against Defendant Taizhou in China in "early 2016" and written notices of infringement sent to Amazon and eBay (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • The '811 Patent Discrepancy: A primary threshold issue for the court will be to address the assertion of U.S. Patent No. 9,587,811. A key question is whether a claim for infringement of this patent is plausible, given that the patent document relates to LED technology while the complaint alleges it covers the accused hair trimming devices.
  • Evidentiary Proof of Infringement: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused products, alleged to be "copies," actually operate using the specific technical mechanism required by the claims. The case will likely turn on factual evidence demonstrating whether the accused trimmers employ a "serpentine path" that functionally causes only the distal ends of hair shafts to be isolated and "flip up" into a cutting chamber.
  • Definitional Scope: The case will likely involve a dispute over claim construction, centered on the term "serpentine path." The key legal question will be whether this term is limited to the specific tension-and-release structure detailed in the patent specifications or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other forms of winding hair-guiding channels.