DCT
1:15-cv-01158
Gillette Co v. Dollar Shave Club Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Gillette Company (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dollar Shave Club, Inc. (Delaware); Dorco Company, Ltd. (South Korea); Pace Shave, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Goodwin Procter LLP
- Case Identification: 1:15-cv-01158, D. Del., 09/12/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Dollar Shave Club is incorporated in Delaware and all defendants conduct business, sell accused products, and have committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ multi-blade razor cartridges infringe a patent related to multi-layer coatings on the blade’s cutting edge.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced material science coatings applied to razor blade edges to enhance durability, strength, and user comfort during shaving.
- Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants have had knowledge of the patent-in-suit and their alleged infringement since at least the date of the original complaint filing, December 17, 2015, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-02-29 | ’513 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-02-03 | ’513 Patent Issue Date |
| c. 2012-03 | Defendant DSC launched membership service |
| 2015-12-17 | Original Complaint filed |
| 2016-09-12 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,684,513 - "Razor Blade Technology"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,684,513, "Razor Blade Technology," issued February 3, 2004.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of a razor blade's cutting edge becoming rounded after repeated shaves, which increases the cutting force required and leads to a "perceived decrease in shaving performance" (’513 Patent, col. 1:23-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a specific multi-layer coating for a razor blade edge. It comprises a hard, carbon-containing layer for strength and corrosion resistance, followed by a specific "overcoat layer of a chromium containing material" that sits between the hard layer and an outermost friction-reducing layer of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). This intermediate chromium-containing overcoat is described as providing two key advantages: reducing the "tip rounding" that occurs with repeated use and improving the adhesion of the outer PTFE layer to the hard coating layer (’513 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-18).
- Technical Importance: This layered structure is designed to provide a blade that maintains excellent shaving characteristics from the first shave onwards by simultaneously providing edge strength, resistance to wear, and low friction (’513 Patent, col. 2:20-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 15-17, 19-20, 23, 24, 28-29, and 31-38 (Compl. ¶32). Independent claims 1, 20, 24, 28, and 35 are asserted.
- Independent Claim 1 recites the core product, a razor blade comprising:
- a substrate with a cutting edge defined by a sharpened tip and adjacent facets,
- a layer of hard coating on said cutting edge, said hard coating being made of amorphous material containing carbon,
- an overcoat layer of a chromium containing material on said layer of hard coating, and
- an outer layer of polytetrafluoroethylene coating over said overcoat layer.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶32).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are a wide range of razor and razor cartridge models sold by Defendants, including those marketed by Dollar Shave Club as "The Humble Twin," "The 4X," and "The Executive," as well as numerous models sold under the "Pace" and "Shai" brand names (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused products as two-, three-, four-, and six-bladed razors and cartridges (Compl. ¶23, ¶25). The infringement allegations focus on the material composition of the blades’ cutting edges (Compl. ¶¶44-47). The complaint alleges that Defendant DSC has captured a "10% share of the U.S. market for men's razor cartridges" with these products (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that each of the accused products contains a razor blade that meets every limitation of the asserted claims. The allegations map directly to the elements of independent claim 1.
’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 | The accused products include a razor blade with a substrate having a cutting edge with a sharpened tip and adjacent facets. | ¶44 | col. 2:36-44 |
| a layer of hard coating on said cutting edge, said hard coating being made of amorphous material containing carbon | The substrates of the accused blades have a layer of hard coating on the cutting edge made of amorphous material containing carbon. | ¶45 | col. 2:52-63 |
| an overcoat layer of a chromium containing material on said layer of hard coating | The substrates have an overcoat layer containing chromium on top of the layer of hard coating. | ¶46 | col. 3:5-13 |
| an outer layer of polytetrafluoroethylene coating over said overcoat layer | The substrates contain an outer layer of polytetrafluoroethylene over the overcoat layer. | ¶47 | col. 3:14-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s infringement allegations are conclusory. The central dispute will likely involve factual, evidence-based questions requiring discovery and expert analysis. For instance: What is the precise chemical composition and nanostructure of the coatings on the accused blades? Can Plaintiff produce evidence (e.g., via scanning electron microscopy or spectroscopy) demonstrating the existence of a distinct "overcoat layer" of "chromium containing material" physically located "on" the "amorphous material containing carbon," as distinct from the final PTFE layer?
- Scope Questions: The case raises the question of whether the accused products' materials fall within the patent's definitions. For example, does the material used for the hard coat in the accused products meet the claim limitation of an "amorphous material containing carbon"?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "amorphous material containing carbon"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the composition of the foundational hard coating. Its construction is critical because the scope of "amorphous" and the types of "carbon containing" materials covered will determine whether the hard coatings on Defendants' blades infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused coating, even if containing carbon, possesses the "amorphous" (i.e., non-crystalline) structure required by the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is facially broad, not specifying a particular type of amorphous carbon.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to specific examples, stating the coating is "preferably coating layer 16 is made of diamond, amorphous diamond or DLC" and that "DLC is an amorphous carbon material" (’513 Patent, col. 2:62-63; col. 3:1-4). A party could argue these preferred embodiments limit the claim's scope to these specific types of materials.
The Term: "overcoat layer ... on said layer of hard coating"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the structural relationship between the intermediate chromium layer and the hard coating. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused blades have a distinct layer that is physically "on" the hard coating, as opposed to being alloyed with it or intermixed. The patent describes this overcoat as being added after the hard coating and before the final outer layer (’513 Patent, col. 1:61-65). Figure 1 of the patent-in-suit is a cross-sectional view of the razor blade's cutting edge showing the substrate and various distinct coating layers, which may inform the interpretation of this structural relationship (’513 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "on" does not require perfect separation and could include some incidental mixing at the boundary between the layers, as long as a distinct overcoat region exists.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a process of "adding" the layers sequentially, and Figure 1 depicts them as discrete, separate layers (16, 18, 20) (’513 Patent, col. 1:62-65; Fig. 1). This could support an interpretation that requires a clearly defined boundary and structural separateness.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement based on Defendants "selling, offering for sale, promoting, marketing and/or importing" the accused razors for "subsequent infringing use by its customers" (Compl. ¶¶34, 49). For contributory infringement, the complaint asserts that the accused razor blades "have no use other than infringing one of more claims of the ’513 patent" (Compl. ¶48).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that each Defendant has had "knowledge of the ’513 Patent since at least the filing of the original complaint on December 17, 2015" (Compl. ¶¶33, 36, 39). This allegation of post-suit knowledge could support a claim for willful infringement from that date forward.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute appears to hinge on two central questions:
A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Gillette demonstrate, through technical analysis of the accused products, that the blades possess the specific four-part layered structure claimed in the patent? This includes proving the existence and composition of each distinct layer, from the amorphous carbon hard coat to the intermediate chromium overcoat to the final PTFE layer.
A key legal question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the scope of the term "amorphous material containing carbon"? The case may turn on whether this term is construed broadly to cover a wide range of non-crystalline carbon coatings or is limited by the specification’s examples of "diamond-like carbon" (DLC).