DCT
1:17-cv-02082
Water Pik Inc v. H2ofloss
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Water Pik, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: H2OFLOSS (Singapore)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-02082, D. Colo., 08/30/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is an alien corporation and, alternatively, because Defendant committed acts of patent infringement in the district through sales on its interactive website to Colorado residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s oral irrigator products infringe three U.S. patents related to vibration damping and compact storage configurations.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns design improvements for powered oral irrigators (water flossers), a mature consumer product category focused on oral hygiene.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history between the parties related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-18 | '710 Patent Priority Date |
| 1998-12-18 | '173 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-05-02 | '710 Patent Issue Date |
| 2002-11-05 | '173 Patent Issue Date |
| 2006-02-24 | '727 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-11-18 | '727 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-08-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,888,727 - Vibration Damping for Dental Water Jet (Issued Nov. 18, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The pumps used in dental water jets are often noisy, which can be "unpleasant for the user" (’727 Patent, col. 1:37-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes to reduce operational noise by using at least one "vibration reduction mount" to connect the pump chassis to the base unit of the device (’727 Patent, Abstract). This mount mechanically isolates the vibrating pump from the main housing, thereby damping the transfer of noise-causing vibrations (Compl. ¶11; ’727 Patent, col. 25:49-59).
- Technical Importance: By reducing audible noise, the invention aims to improve the overall user experience of a daily-use consumer healthcare product, potentially increasing user compliance and satisfaction (’727 Patent, col. 1:37-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 10, 11, and 17 (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A base unit with a cavity, a pump chassis, and a pump mounted to the chassis.
- A "vibration reduction mount" that separates the chassis from the base unit, extends through a bottom wall of the base, and connects the pump to the base.
- The mount comprises a "mount body" and a "slot defined on a lateral side of the mount body" that receives a portion of the chassis.
- The mount functions to reduce the transfer of vibrations from the pump to the base unit.
U.S. Patent No. 6,475,173 - Oral Irrigator Housing (Issued Nov. 5, 2002)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that oral irrigators are often "relatively bulky and thus difficult" to store, particularly in bathrooms with limited counter space (’173 Patent, col. 1:20-25). It also notes that correctly repositioning a removable reservoir can be difficult, and the exposed hand piece is subject to damage when stored (’173 Patent, col. 1:26-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a housing where the water reservoir serves a dual purpose. It can be placed in an upright orientation for use, and it can be inverted to act as a protective cover over the base unit for compact storage (’173 Patent, col. 1:46-56). The design includes an indentation in the reservoir wall that receives and protects the hand piece when the device is in its "use" configuration (Compl. ¶12; ’173 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The design addresses key consumer usability issues by making the product easier to store in limited spaces and protecting key components from damage, enhancing its practicality for everyday household use (’173 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A base unit with a recess for a hand piece and a peripheral shoulder.
- A reservoir with a cavity, a rim, and an "indentation" with a "top wall" forming an overhang.
- The reservoir is positionable in a storage orientation where its cavity "encompasses said base unit."
- The reservoir is also positionable in a use orientation where its bottom surface rests on the base unit for fluid transfer.
- In the use orientation, the "indentation" is oriented with the hand piece recess, such that the hand piece is "received in said indentation and covered by said top wall."
U.S. Patent No. 6,056,710 - Oral Irrigator Housing (Issued May 2, 2000) (Multi-Patent Capsule)
Technology Synopsis
This patent, the parent of the ’173 Patent, addresses the same problems of bulky size and component vulnerability in oral irrigators (’710 Patent, col. 1:18-45). It discloses a housing with a dual-purpose reservoir that can be oriented upright for use or inverted to serve as a compact storage cover that encloses features of the base, thereby protecting irrigator jet tips from being damaged or lost (Compl. ¶13; ’710 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the Accused HF-7 Products feature a base unit and a reservoir that is "positionable on a base unit in two orientations, one for use and one for storage" (Compl. ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "HF-7 Series" and "HF-8 Series" lines of oral irrigators ("Accused Products") manufactured and sold by Defendant H2OFloss (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are oral irrigators sold through Defendant's website and national distributors, including Amazon.com (Compl. ¶14).
- In relation to the ’727 Patent, the Accused Products are alleged to include "rubber vibration mounts" that connect an internal chassis to the base unit, with the mounts including a "slot that receives a corner edge of the chassis" (Compl. ¶17).
- In relation to the ’173 and ’710 Patents, the Accused HF-7 Products are alleged to have a reservoir that can be placed on the base unit in two different orientations: one for use and one for storage, where the reservoir cavity covers the base unit (Compl. ¶23, ¶29). The Accused HF-7 products are also alleged to include a "complementary reservoir and base that seat together to self-align" (Compl. ¶23).
- The complaint identifies H2OFloss as a "direct competitor of Water Pik" (Compl. ¶14).
Visual Evidence
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'727 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a vibration reduction mount separating the pump chassis from the base unit...and connecting the pump to the base unit | The Accused Products include "rubber vibration mounts that connect the chassis to the bottom wall of the base unit." | ¶17 | col. 25:49-59 |
| the vibration reduction mount comprising... a slot defined on a lateral side of the mount body, wherein a portion of the chassis is received into the slot | The rubber mounts "include a slot that receives a corner edge of the chassis." | ¶17 | col. 26:55-58 |
'173 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| said reservoir positionable on said base unit such that said cavity encompasses said base unit... and positionable on said base unit such that said bottom surface of said reservoir rests on said top surface... | The Accused HF-7 Products include "a reservoir that is positionable on the base unit in two orientations, and in one of the orientations, the reservoir cavity encompasses the base unit." | ¶23 | col. 5:15-25 |
| said indentation being oriented with said recess, wherein the hand piece is received in said indentation and covered by said top wall | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, alleging only the dual-orientation capability broadly. | ¶23 | col. 6:33-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the ’727 Patent, a central question will be whether the accused "rubber vibration mounts" meet all structural and functional limitations of the claimed "vibration reduction mount." For the ’173 Patent, a key issue is whether the term "encompasses", which implies surrounding or enclosing, can be read on the accused configuration where the reservoir is used as a cover.
- Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question for the ’173 Patent will be whether the Accused HF-7 Products include the specific protective structure recited in Claim 1, namely an "indentation" that receives the hand piece and a "top wall" that covers it. The complaint's infringement theory focuses on the dual-orientation feature but is less specific on this protective sub-element, which may suggest a potential mismatch in technical operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’727 Patent
- The Term: "vibration reduction mount"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused "rubber mounts" fall within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, describing a mount that "separating the pump chassis from the base unit" and "reduces transfer of vibrations" (’727 Patent, cl. 1). This may support an interpretation covering any structure that performs this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment comprising a mount body, mount shaft, and mount head with a trapezoidal profile (e.g., ’727 Patent, Figs. 18-19; col. 24:3-25). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to structures consistent with this disclosed embodiment.
For the ’173 Patent
- The Term: "indentation... wherein the hand piece is received in said indentation and covered by said top wall"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific protective feature of the housing. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires the accused product to not only have a dual-use reservoir, but one that specifically protects the hand piece in the manner claimed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that any recess in the reservoir that partially holds the hand piece and is partially shielded by an overhanging part of the reservoir meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes how the "top wall 96 extends over the hand piece 26, and two adjacent sidewalls 100 of the indentation 92 protect the hand piece from incidental vertical or lateral contact" (’173 Patent, col. 5:9-12). This language, along with Figure 1, may support a narrower construction requiring a structure that provides substantial, multi-sided protection.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint reserves the right to seek a finding of willfulness based on facts developed in discovery (Compl. ¶18, ¶24, ¶30). The prayer for relief also seeks enhanced damages based on alleged "knowing, deliberate and willful" infringement, with notice established "at least as early as the date of the service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶D, p. 9). This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on two central questions for the court:
A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: For the ’727 patent, does the accused product's simple "rubber mount" possess the specific structural elements, such as the claimed "slot" and its interaction with the pump chassis, and perform the vibration reduction function in the manner disclosed in the patent?
A core issue will be one of limitation completeness: For the ’173 and ’710 patents, while the accused products are alleged to have a dual-orientation reservoir, do they also incorporate the other specific structural and functional limitations of the asserted claims, most notably the protective "indentation" and "top wall" that receives and covers the hand piece as required by Claim 1 of the ’173 patent? The complaint's lack of specificity on this point raises the question of a potential mismatch between the accused product's features and the patent's claims.