DCT

1:15-cv-01158

Gillette Co v. Dollar Shave Club Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-01158, D. Del., 08/13/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Dollar Shave Club's incorporation in Delaware and all Defendants' regular transaction of business and distribution of accused products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ multi-bladed razor system and disposable razor products infringe a patent related to multi-layer coating technology for razor blade edges.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns specific layered coatings applied to a razor blade's cutting edge to enhance durability, reduce friction, and maintain sharpness over repeated uses.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided document is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants have been on notice of the patent-in-suit since the filing of the original complaint on December 17, 2015, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-02-29 ’513 Patent Priority Date
2004-02-03 ’513 Patent Issue Date
2011-07-01 Defendant DSC began operations (approx.)
2012-03-01 Defendant DSC launched membership service (approx.)
2015-12-17 Original complaint filed; alleged date of notice for willfulness
2018-08-13 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,684,513, "Razor Blade Technology" (Issued Feb. 3, 2004)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a problem where razor blades with conventional hard coatings and lubricious outer layers can suffer from "tip rounding after repeated shaves," which increases the cutting force required and degrades shaving performance (’513 Patent, col. 2:23-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific multi-layer coating for a razor blade edge designed to solve this problem. It comprises four key components: (1) a blade substrate, (2) a hard coating layer containing carbon, (3) a specific "overcoat layer" of chromium-containing material on top of the hard coat, and (4) an outer layer of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) for lubricity (’513 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The patent asserts that the intermediate chromium overcoat layer improves the adhesion of the outer PTFE layer and provides "reduced tip rounding with repeated shaves," thus preserving performance (’513 Patent, col. 2:15-22).
  • Technical Importance: This specific layered structure is presented as a way to improve blade durability and maintain a high-quality shave from the first use onwards by strengthening the cutting edge and ensuring the lubricious coating adheres properly (’513 Patent, col. 2:18-22; Compl. ¶28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 20, 24, 28, and 35, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶32). Independent Claim 1, a product claim, is representative of the core technology.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A substrate with a cutting edge defined by a sharpened tip and adjacent facets.
    • A layer of hard coating on the cutting edge, where the hard coating is made of amorphous material containing carbon.
    • An overcoat layer of a chromium containing material on the layer of hard coating.
    • An outer layer of polytetrafluoroethylene coating over the overcoat layer.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’513 Patent, col. 4:5-14; Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of Defendants' two-, three-, four-, and six-bladed razor systems and disposable razors (Compl. ¶2). These include products marketed by Dollar Shave Club, such as "The Humble Twin," "The 4X," and "The Executive," as well as numerous "Pace" and "Shai" branded products allegedly manufactured by Dorco and distributed by Pace Shave (Compl. ¶2, 21-25).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the razor blades within these products are constructed with a multi-layer coating that mirrors the structure claimed in the ’513 Patent (Compl. ¶47-50). Dollar Shave Club is presented as a significant market participant, having acquired "a 10% share of the U.S. market for men's razor cartridges" through a low-cost subscription model (Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that the accused razors literally infringe the ’513 patent by embodying each element of the asserted claims. The core allegations for the representative claim are summarized below.

’513 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a substrate with a cutting edge defined by a sharpened tip and adjacent facets, Each accused product includes a razor blade that has a substrate with a cutting edge, a sharpened tip, and adjacent facets. ¶47 col. 3:38-45
a layer of hard coating on said cutting edge, said hard coating being made of amorphous material containing carbon, The substrate in each accused product has a layer of hard coating on the cutting edge made of an amorphous material that contains carbon. ¶48 col. 4:5-8
an overcoat layer of a chromium containing material on said layer of hard coating, and The substrate in each accused product has an overcoat layer containing chromium that is located on top of the hard coating layer. ¶49 col. 4:8-14
an outer layer of polytetrafluoroethylene coating over said overcoat layer. The substrate in each accused product has an outer layer of polytetrafluoroethylene that is located over the overcoat layer. ¶50 col.4:15-18

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The primary dispute will likely center on factual, evidence-based questions. Does advanced material analysis (e.g., transmission electron microscopy) of the accused blades confirm the existence of these distinct, separate layers as claimed? For instance, what proof demonstrates that a separate "overcoat layer" exists, as opposed to chromium being integrated or alloyed into the hard coating itself?
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the scope of the claim terms. For example, does the material used in the accused products' hard coating qualify as an "amorphous material containing carbon" as the term is used and defined within the patent? Similarly, the definition of what constitutes a distinct "overcoat layer" versus an interface or gradient layer could be a central point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "amorphous material containing carbon"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the critical hard coating. The infringement analysis depends on whether the specific material used by the Defendants falls within this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue their coating is of a different, non-infringing type (e.g., a different crystalline structure or composition).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples including "diamond, amorphous diamond or DLC [diamond-like carbon]" and notes that the material can be "doped with other elements," which may support a reading that covers a range of carbon-based hard coatings (’513 Patent, col. 3:55-62).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly distinguishes the material from the "crystalline structure of diamond" (’513 Patent, col. 4:1-4). A defendant might argue the term should be limited to the specific examples provided, particularly DLC, which is a well-understood term of art, and that their material possesses different properties.

  • The Term: "overcoat layer ... on said layer of hard coating"

    • Context and Importance: This term is crucial because it defines the structural relationship of the claimed layers. The existence of this separate intermediate layer is a key feature of the invention. A central question for infringement will be whether the accused blades have a distinct layer of chromium "on" the hard coating, or if chromium is present in a different configuration.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the function of the overcoat layer as reducing tip rounding and facilitating bonding of the outer layer (’513 Patent, col. 4:4-7). A plaintiff could argue that any structurally identifiable material between the hard coat and the PTFE that contains chromium and serves this purpose meets the definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the overcoat layer (18) as a discrete layer separate from and on top of the hard coating layer (16). The specification further describes a particular embodiment as having a chromium overcoat that is "about 100-200 angstroms thick" (’513 Patent, col. 4:10-11). A defendant may argue that to be an "overcoat layer," the feature must be a separately deposited, structurally distinct film, not merely an interfacial region or a compositional gradient.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "selling, offering for sale, promoting, marketing and/or importing" the accused products for use by customers (Compl. ¶34, 38, 42). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused razors and blades "have no use other than infringing" the patent, a common allegation for products that are themselves the claimed apparatus (Compl. ¶51, 61, 71).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after gaining knowledge of the ’513 Patent, with the date of knowledge alleged to be "at least the filing of the original complaint on December 17, 2015" (Compl. ¶33, 54, 64, 74).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate through material science analysis that the accused razor blades possess the specific, four-part layered structure—substrate, amorphous carbon hard coat, chromium overcoat, and PTFE outer layer—required by the asserted claims? The case will likely depend on expert testimony interpreting microscopic evidence of the blades' composition and structure.
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "overcoat layer ... on said layer of hard coating"? The outcome will determine whether a distinct, separately deposited film is required for infringement, or if an interfacial region or compositional gradient containing chromium is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.