DCT
3:23-cv-00446
EquiGroomer LLC v. SleekEZ LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: EquiGroomer, LLC (Connecticut)
- Defendant: SleekEZ, LLC (Wyoming)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McCormick, Paulding & Huber PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00446, D. Conn., 04/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Connecticut based on Defendant’s commercial contacts with the state and directed threats at the Plaintiff, a Connecticut-based entity.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its animal grooming products do not infringe Defendant’s patent, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the mechanical design of handheld grooming tools used to remove hair and fur from animals, a market segment with competing consumer products.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a prior lawsuit filed by SleekEZ against EquiGroomer in 2022, which was transferred to the District of Connecticut and subsequently voluntarily dismissed by SleekEZ without prejudice. This history forms the basis for the "actual and justiciable controversy" required for the current declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-04-01 | EquiGroomer alleges it began selling its grooming tools (approx.) |
| 2014-07-04 | SleekEZ allegedly advertises grooming tool embodying the invention |
| 2014-09-02 | EquiGroomer founder files "Dauphin Publication" patent application |
| 2015-05-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,474,250 Priority/Filing Date |
| 2016-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,474,250 Issue Date |
| 2022-01-19 | SleekEZ files prior infringement lawsuit against EquiGroomer |
| 2023-01-05 | SleekEZ voluntarily dismisses its prior lawsuit |
| 2024-04-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,474,250 - "Animal Grooming Tool With Wave Pattern Blade Teeth"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,474,250, “Animal Grooming Tool With Wave Pattern Blade Teeth,” issued October 25, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section suggests that prior art grooming tools lacked the "unique structure, function and advantages" of the disclosed invention, without specifying a more particular technical problem ('250 Patent, col. 1:12-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a grooming tool with a handle holding an elongated blade. The key feature is that the blade teeth are arranged in a "wave pattern" that "undulates forward and backward" along the blade's length ('250 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:21-25). This undulating motion is described as creating a more efficient and effective way to groom an animal by gliding through its coat ('250 Patent, col. 2:45-50). The patent illustrates this concept in Figure 5, a top-down view of the blade teeth arrangement.
- Technical Importance: The patent asserts that this "wave" configuration is more effective at removing shedding hair, fur, and dander compared to tools with blade teeth arranged in a simple linear fashion ('250 Patent, col. 2:45-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement with respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 11 (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 1, the broadest claim, requires:
- A handle with an elongated blade slot.
- A blade, with a portion received in the slot.
- Blade teeth formed along the blade’s length, having a same length.
- The blade teeth "undulating forward and backward" to form a "wave configuration" where, along the blade’s length:
- a first plurality of teeth "progressively decrease in distance from the blade slot from a first crest to a first trough."
- followed by a second plurality of teeth "progressively increasing in distance from the blade slot to a second crest."
- followed by a third plurality of teeth "progressively decreasing in distance from the blade slot to a second trough."
- The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but reserves the right to address them.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- EquiGroomer’s grooming products (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the products as "animal grooming products" manufactured and sold by EquiGroomer since at least April 2014 (Compl. ¶2, 9). The complaint does not detail the specific features of its products, but instead focuses its technical allegations on what its products lack. It asserts that its tools do not possess the specific "wave configuration" geometry recited in the claims of the ’250 Patent (Compl. ¶24). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes the plaintiff's core argument for why its products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.
’250 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| blade teeth undulating forward and backward along the length of the blade to form a wave configuration such that along the length of the blade a first plurality of the blade teeth progressively decrease in distance from the blade slot from a first crest to a first trough...followed by a second plurality...progressively increasing...to a second crest...followed by a third plurality...progressively decreasing...to a second trough | EquiGroomer’s grooming tools "do not include blade teeth that decrease in distance from a blade slot from a crest to a trough of a wave configuration, or increase in distance from a blade slot from a trough to a crest of a wave configuration." | ¶24 | col. 3:4-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be the interpretation of the phrase "progressively decrease/increase in distance from the blade slot." The court will need to determine whether this requires a specific, measurable geometric relationship or if a more general "wavy" appearance suffices.
- Technical Questions: The primary factual question is whether the geometry of the EquiGroomer tool's blade meets the specific definition of the "wave configuration" as construed by the court. The complaint’s allegation of non-infringement is a direct negation of this claim element (Compl. ¶24).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "blade teeth... progressively decrease in distance from the blade slot from a first crest to a first trough... followed by a second plurality... progressively increasing in distance from the blade slot to a second crest..."
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of the asserted invention and the sole basis for the non-infringement argument presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶24). The outcome of the infringement analysis will almost certainly depend on the construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that terms like "undulating" and "wave pattern" used in the specification suggest the overall visual shape is more important than a strict mathematical progression ('250 Patent, col. 1:22, 2:20-21).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific, reciting a sequence of "progressively decreasing" and "progressively increasing" distances. A party could argue this requires a specific, non-arbitrary geometric structure, as depicted in the "greatly enlarged top view" of Figure 5, which is intended to illustrate this precise pattern ('250 Patent, col. 2:9-11, Fig. 5).
VI. Other Allegations
The declaratory judgment complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement. Instead, it makes several allegations concerning the validity and enforceability of the ’250 Patent.
- Invalidity Allegations: The complaint alleges the ’250 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 (Compl. ¶29). The specific grounds include:
- An "on-sale bar" under § 102, based on allegations that Defendant SleekEZ sold products embodying the invention more than one year before the patent's filing date (Compl. ¶30).
- Anticipation under § 102 by Plaintiff's own prior grooming tools (Compl. ¶31).
- Anticipation or obviousness under §§ 102/103 in view of a patent publication filed by Plaintiff's founder (the "Dauphin Publication") (Compl. ¶32).
- Failure to meet the written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements of § 112 (Compl. ¶33-36).
- Unenforceability Allegations: The complaint alleges the ’250 Patent is unenforceable due to:
- Inequitable Conduct: Plaintiff alleges the inventor and her attorney intentionally withheld evidence of prior commercial sales from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution (Compl. ¶41-44). A separate allegation of inequitable conduct is based on the claim of micro-entity status, which Plaintiff alleges was improper (Compl. ¶45-46).
- Equitable Defenses: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's delay in filing suit after issuing threats constitutes waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel, rendering the patent unenforceable against EquiGroomer (Compl. ¶50).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present several distinct and significant legal and factual questions for the court's determination:
- A central question of claim construction: What is the precise technical meaning of the "wave configuration" limitation, specifically the requirement that pluralities of teeth "progressively decrease" and "progressively increase" in distance from the blade slot? The case's infringement outcome hinges on this definition.
- A critical question of validity: Do the facts surrounding Defendant's alleged commercial activities, which the complaint claims began as early as 2011 (Compl. ¶40), establish an "on-sale bar" that would invalidate the ’250 patent, which was not filed until 2015?
- A significant question of enforceability: Did the patentee or its attorney engage in inequitable conduct by allegedly failing to disclose these prior sales to the patent office, an omission that, if proven to be material and done with deceptive intent, could render the entire patent unenforceable?