DCT
1:22-cv-01820
Shenzhen FULILAI Technology Co Ltd v. Waterpik Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhen Fulilai Technology Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Elifloss Direct) (China)
- Defendant: Water Pik, Inc. (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayramoglu Law Offices, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01820, D. Colo., 07/22/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s principal place of business being in Colorado and the allegation that Defendant’s actions of filing patent infringement complaints with Amazon.com were activities directed at Colorado that inflicted harm on the Plaintiff.
- Core Dispute: This is a declaratory judgment action in which the Plaintiff, an Amazon seller, seeks a court declaration that its "Dental Flosser" product does not infringe the Defendant's patent, following multiple infringement complaints filed by the Defendant with Amazon.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to portable, hand-held oral irrigators, a category of dental hygiene devices that use a pressurized stream of water to clean between teeth and along the gumline.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant, Water Pik, filed three separate patent infringement complaints with Amazon.com against the Plaintiff's product listing. The first two complaints allegedly resulted in temporary delistings, which were reversed after the Plaintiff submitted explanations of non-infringement to Amazon. The third complaint resulted in a delisting that, as of the filing date, had not been reversed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-12-31 | '500 Patent - Earliest Priority Date (Provisional 60/437,300) |
| 2018-02-02 | '500 Patent - Application Filing Date |
| 2020-04-14 | '500 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2021-07-07 | Plaintiff begins selling the accused Dental Flosser on Amazon.com |
| 2021-11-24 | Defendant files first infringement complaint with Amazon |
| 2022-03-02 | Defendant files second infringement complaint with Amazon |
| 2022-04-07 | Defendant files third infringement complaint with Amazon |
| 2022-07-22 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,617,500 - Oral Irrigator (Issued Apr. 14, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional oral irrigators often include a large base unit connected by a tube to a separate hand-held wand, making them difficult to transport, use, or store, particularly for travelers (’500 Patent, col. 1:24-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, hand-held oral irrigator that integrates the reservoir, pump, and motor into a single portable unit. The device features a specific internal pump mechanism, including a piston and a linkage system, designed to convert the motor's rotational movement into the linear pumping motion needed to pressurize and expel water through a tip (’500 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2-15). The design also contemplates a "self-priming" feature where the reservoir's position relative to the pump inlet uses gravity to ensure the pump is ready for immediate operation (’500 Patent, col. 2:46-51).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide the benefits of oral irrigation in a compact, portable form factor, addressing a key usability limitation of earlier, bulkier models.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 14 as the basis for Defendant's infringement allegations (Compl. ¶37).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an oral irrigator with:
- a handle, a tip, and a pump
- the pump comprising a pump body defining a pump chamber
- an inlet valve regulating flow into the pump chamber
- an outlet valve regulating flow out of the pump chamber
- a piston movably positioned within the pump chamber
- a linkage operably coupling the piston to a motor's drive shaft
- Independent Claim 14 recites an oral irrigation device with:
- a tip and a pump operative to draw fluid from a source and propel it to the tip
- the pump including an interior fluid channel, first and second valves, a pump body, and a piston
- specific functional requirements for the valves: "when the piston moves one of upwards or downwards within the chamber the first valve is open and the second valve is closed, and when the piston moves the other one of upwards or downwards within the chamber the second valve is open and the first valve is closed"
- a pump gear with specific geometric features (first and second disc portions, offset relative to a center axis)
- a connecting rod with specific features (ball end, cylindrical end)
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any valid claim" of the patent (Compl. p. 14, ¶2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Water Dental Flosser Cordless V35(Black)," sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com under ASIN B098VYKM2R (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the product as a "Dental Flosser" and provides a product image showing a portable, self-contained oral irrigation device with a reservoir, a main body, and interchangeable tips (Compl. ¶9). The image shows the product and its packaging, which advertises it as a "Powerful Dental Flosser." (Compl. ¶9).
- Plaintiff alleges it is an Amazon Seller and that 100% of its revenue since July 7, 2021, has come from sales of the Dental Flosser through Amazon.com (Compl. ¶10). It further alleges that Defendant is in direct competition with it on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the key elements of the '500 Patent that the Plaintiff alleges are not present in its Dental Flosser product.
'500 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an inlet valve regulating flow into the pump chamber | Plaintiff alleges its Dental Flosser does not include this element. | ¶38 | col. 14:32-33 |
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first valve regulating fluid flow into the interior fluid channel form the fluid source | Plaintiff alleges its Dental Flosser does not include this element. | ¶39 | col. 15:50-52 |
| a piston... wherein when the piston moves one of upwards or downwards within the chamber the first valve is open and the second valve is closed, and when the piston moves the other one of upwards or downwards within the chamber the second valve is open and the first valve is closed | Plaintiff alleges its Dental Flosser does not include this element. | ¶40 | col. 15:65-16:2 |
| a pump gear comprising a second disc portion extending from the first disc portion, wherein the second disc portion is offset relative to a center axis of the first disc portion | Plaintiff alleges its Dental Flosser does not include this element. | ¶41 | col. 16:4-8 |
| a pump gear comprising a gear pin coaxial with an axis of the first disc portion and about which the pump gear rotates | Plaintiff alleges its Dental Flosser does not include this element. | ¶42 | col. 16:9-11 |
| a connecting rod comprising a cylindrical end operatively connected to a second disc portion | Plaintiff alleges its Dental Flosser does not include this element. | ¶43 | col. 16:14-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Questions: The core of the dispute appears to be factual. The complaint makes conclusory statements that specific, detailed mechanical components and functional operations required by claims 1 and 14 are absent from the accused product. The case will require a comparison of the Dental Flosser's actual internal construction and operation against the claim language.
- Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether the components within the Plaintiff's Dental Flosser that perform intake and exhaust functions meet the specific structural and functional definitions of the "inlet valve," "first valve," "second valve," "pump gear," and "connecting rod" as claimed. For example, does the accused product's mechanism for drawing water into its pump constitute an "inlet valve" as understood in the context of the patent?
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused product's pump operates with the specific, coordinated timing of valve opening and closing as recited in claim 14 (i.e., one valve open while the other is closed during piston movement). Evidence regarding the precise mechanical and fluidic operation of the accused device's pump will be central.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "inlet valve" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the Plaintiff's entire non-infringement argument for Claim 1 hinges on the alleged absence of this single element (Compl. ¶38). The definition will determine what type of structure qualifies, and whether a simpler fluid intake mechanism in the accused device falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify a particular type of valve. The specification discloses "reed valves" as one embodiment, but does not appear to limit the invention to that specific type, which may support an interpretation that covers any structure that regulates flow into the chamber (’500 Patent, col. 4:9-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the valve as a distinct component, for example, "an inlet valve regulating fluid flow into the pump chamber; an outlet valve regulating fluid flow out of the pump chamber" (’500 Patent, col. 14:32-35). Detailed embodiments show a specific "reed valve 230" with a flap and hinge structure, which may support an argument that the term requires a similar discrete, movable component and does not cover a simple opening or passive channel (’500 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 9:36-49).
The Term: "wherein when the piston moves one of upwards or downwards... the first valve is open and the second valve is closed, and when the piston moves the other one... the second valve is open and the first valve is closed" (Claim 14)
Context and Importance: This functional language dictates the precise timing and coordination of the pump's valves. Plaintiff alleges its device does not meet this limitation (Compl. ¶40). The dispute will turn on whether the accused device's pump exhibits this exact reciprocal action or operates differently, for instance, with periods where both valves might be momentarily closed or open.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language is functional and does not specify the mechanism that achieves the result. An argument could be made that any pump system that achieves this alternating one-way flow, regardless of the precise mechanical cause, meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent ties this function to a specific piston-driven mechanism with reed valves. Figures 11, 12, 14, and 15 are dedicated to illustrating this precise timing. This suggests the possibility that the function is inextricably linked to the disclosed mechanical structure, potentially narrowing its scope to systems that operate in a substantially identical way. The explicit language "when the piston moves" ties the valve state directly to the piston's movement, which could be argued to exclude systems where valve state is controlled by fluid pressure or other factors independent of the piston's direction of travel.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not contributed to and is not contributing to infringement, and has not induced and is not inducing infringement of any claim (Compl. ¶44). The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations on this point beyond a general denial.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful patent infringement. Instead, it alleges that the Defendant's (Water Pik's) infringement complaints to Amazon were filed "falsely and in bad faith" (Compl. ¶20, ¶24), and constituted "willful and fraudulent efforts to harm Plaintiff" (Compl. ¶60). Plaintiff seeks a judgment that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285, which is the statutory remedy for litigation misconduct or baseless infringement assertions (Compl. p. 14-15, ¶¶ 3, 4).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical fact: does the Plaintiff's Dental Flosser, when deconstructed and analyzed, contain the specific pump geometry (offset discs, gear pins) and coordinated valve system (reciprocal open/closed states tied to piston movement) as explicitly recited in the detailed limitations of independent claim 14? The case may depend heavily on expert testimony and a "battle of the prototypes."
- The primary legal question will be one of claim scope: can the term "inlet valve" from claim 1 be construed broadly to read on any mechanism that permits fluid intake, or is it limited by the specification's embodiments to a discrete, movable component like the disclosed reed valve? The answer will likely determine the outcome of infringement for claim 1.
- A parallel question concerns litigation conduct: did the Defendant have a good faith basis for asserting infringement against the Plaintiff's product in its complaints to Amazon, or were those assertions, as Plaintiff alleges, objectively baseless and made in bad faith, potentially rendering the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. §285?