DCT
3:17-cv-01594
Gillette Co LLC v. Edgewell Personal Care Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Gillette Company, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Edgewell Personal Care Company (Missouri); Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC (Delaware); Edgewell Personal Care, LLC (Delaware); and Schick Manufacturing, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Day Pitney LLP; Goodwin Procter LLP
- Case Identification: 3:17-cv-01594, D. Conn., 09/25/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Connecticut because each Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there. For LLC defendants, Plaintiff alleges they "reside" in the district because they are subject to personal jurisdiction there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hydro Connect" line of replaceable razor cartridges, which are designed to be compatible with Plaintiff's Fusion razor handles, infringes a patent related to the mechanical structure of the cartridge's connecting member.
- Technical Context: The case concerns the highly competitive consumer market for safety razors, where the mechanical interface between a reusable handle and a disposable blade cartridge is a key area of technical differentiation and brand loyalty.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of June 19, 2017. Plaintiff also notes that it provides constructive notice to the public of its patent rights via virtual marking on its website.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-03-11 | ’077 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2015-11-24 | ’077 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2017-05-24 | Accused Products ("Hydro Connect") Launch Date |
| 2017-06-19 | Alleged Date of Defendants' Actual Knowledge of '077 Patent |
| 2017-09-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,193,077 - “Shaving Razor Cartridge Having Connecting Member” (issued Nov. 24, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes shaving razor cartridges that are removably attachable to a handle (Compl. ¶51). A central technical challenge in such systems is designing a connection that is secure during use but easily released, while also ensuring the cartridge pivots correctly against the skin. The patent addresses how to balance the cartridge about its pivot axis to prevent undesirable "rock back" and to ensure pressure applied by the user is distributed evenly during shaving (’077 Patent, col. 11:1-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a shaving cartridge assembly with a specific connecting member that pivotally attaches to the blade unit. The core of the claimed solution is the structure of this connecting member, which features a body with a pair of opposing, deflectable latches that extend along an integral wall to engage a razor handle (’077 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 36). This design aims to provide a secure connection while also carefully controlling the cartridge's pivot dynamics and balance against the user's skin (’077 Patent, col. 11:23-40).
- Technical Importance: In the market for multi-blade razors, the performance of the pivoting connection mechanism directly impacts the quality, comfort, and safety of the shave, making it a critical area for innovation (Compl. ¶23-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶61).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A blade unit with a housing, a guard, a cap, and at least one blade.
- A connecting member with a pair of arms that form a pivoting connection to the blade unit.
- The connecting member having a pair of deflectable latches that "extend generally along an integral wall of the body toward each other" and define part of an opening.
- Independent Claim 11 requires:
- A blade unit with a housing, a guard, a cap, and at least one blade with a cutting edge.
- A connecting member pivotably connected to the blade unit.
- The connecting member's body has an "arched profile top surface, said arched profile top surface arched in at least two dimensions."
- A pair of opposing deflectable latches extending along this arched profile, with the latches extending toward each other to define part of an opening.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4, 12-14, and 18-20 (Compl. ¶61).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Hydro Connect 5" and "Hydro Connect 5 Sensitive" razor cartridges (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are razor blade refill cartridges. Their central functionality, as alleged in the complaint, is their designed compatibility with Plaintiff's own Gillette Fusion and Mach3 razor handles (Compl. ¶26, 39). The complaint highlights Defendants' marketing, which explicitly promotes this cross-compatibility to consumers (Compl. ¶39). An annotated product photograph in the complaint shows the Accused Product's main components, including the blade unit and the connecting member (Compl. p. 15). The complaint alleges the Accused Products are structurally identical, with minor differences in lubricant formulation and color (Compl. ¶37).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’077 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a blade unit having a housing with a guard at a front of the housing, a cap at the rear of the housing, and at least one blade between the guard and the cap | The Accused Products include a blade unit with a housing, guard, cap, and multiple blades. An annotated photograph identifies these components (Compl. p. 15). | ¶63 | col. 4:32-37 |
| a connecting member having a pair of arms extending outwardly from a body forming a pivoting connection to the blade unit | The Accused Products possess a connecting member with a body and a pair of outwardly extending arms that create a pivoting connection to the blade unit. An annotated photograph illustrates this structure (Compl. p. 15). | ¶64 | col. 9:55-61 |
| wherein a pair of deflectable latches extend generally along an integral wall of the body toward each other... defining a portion of an opening extending through the wall | The Accused Products are alleged to have a pair of deflectable latches on the connecting member's body. An annotated photograph shows these latches extending along an integral wall toward each other, defining an opening (Compl. p. 16). | ¶65-66 | col. 12:61-69 |
’077 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 11)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a connecting member pivotably connected to the blade unit, the connecting member having a body with an arched profile top surface, said arched profile top surface arched in at least two dimensions | The Accused Products' connecting member is alleged to be pivotably connected to the blade unit and to have a body with a top surface that is arched in at least two dimensions. An annotated photograph points to this "arched profile top surface" (Compl. p. 19). | ¶71-73 | col. 12:49-54 |
| the body having a pair of opposing deflectable latches extending along the arched profile of the top surface of the body, wherein the pair of deflectable latches extend toward each other and have an opposing free distal end defining a portion of an opening extending through the body | The body of the connecting member is alleged to have a pair of opposing, deflectable latches that extend along the arched top surface toward each other. An annotated photograph highlights these latches, their free distal ends, and the opening they define (Compl. p. 19). | ¶74-75 | col. 12:61-69 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the proper construction of the phrase "arched in at least two dimensions" from claim 11. The litigation may explore what degree or type of curvature is required to meet this limitation and whether the accused design possesses it.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on evidence demonstrating the specific geometry and functionality of the Accused Products' connecting member. A key factual question is whether the latches on the accused cartridge "extend generally along an integral wall of the body toward each other" as required by claim 1, or if they are structurally distinct in a way that avoids this limitation. The complaint provides annotated photographs as initial evidence of this structure (Compl. p. 16, 19).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a pair of deflectable latches [that] extend generally along an integral wall of the body toward each other" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanical structure of the latching mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because the definitions of "generally along" and "integral wall" will be critical. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused latches, as depicted in the complaint (Compl. p. 16), are part of an "integral wall" or are better characterized as distinct projections, and whether their orientation satisfies the "generally along" and "toward each other" requirements.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the word "generally," which may suggest that precise alignment along the wall is not required. The summary of the invention describes the components in broad terms, which could support a less restrictive reading (’077 Patent, col. 2:36-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 36 of the patent shows a specific embodiment where the latches (162, 164) appear as continuous inward extensions of the surrounding wall (172). A defendant may argue that this figure defines the scope of an "integral wall," limiting the claim to structures that are geometrically continuous with the wall itself.
The Term: "arched profile top surface arched in at least two dimensions" (Claim 11)
Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes independent claim 11 from claim 1 and imposes a specific three-dimensional shape on the connecting member. The case may turn on whether the accused product's connecting member, which the complaint alleges has an "arched profile top surface" (Compl. p. 19), actually meets the "arched in at least two dimensions" requirement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "arched in at least two dimensions," potentially leaving the term open to its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any compound curve.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that the body of the connecting member (140) has an "arched profile to mate with body 167, which has a correspondingly arched profile" and can be "generally D-shaped" (’077 Patent, col. 12:50-58). A party could argue these specific descriptions and the associated figures (e.g., Fig. 36) confine the scope of the "arched profile" to this particular shape.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendants' marketing materials and product leaflets instruct consumers to use the accused cartridges with Gillette's handles (Compl. ¶39, 45). These allegations regarding the intentional promotion of a combination could potentially support a future claim of induced infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate. This allegation is based on the claim that Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’077 Patent since at least June 19, 2017, and continued to infringe despite this knowledge and the high risk of infringement (Compl. ¶57, 84).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The outcome will heavily depend on the court's construction of key structural terms in the claims, such as whether the accused product's "deflectable latches" are part of an "integral wall" and whether its connecting body has a top surface that is "arched in at least two dimensions."
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and structural correspondence: Assuming the court construes the claims, the case will turn on a factual, expert-driven comparison of the accused cartridge's physical structure against the claim limitations. The annotated photographs in the complaint represent the plaintiff's initial position on this correspondence, which will be scrutinized and countered by the defense.