Dorco Co Ltd v. Gillette Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dorco Company, Ltd. (Republic of Korea)
  • Defendant: The Gillette Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01306, D. Del., 08/23/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant Gillette's incorporation in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s FUSION5 line of shavers and replacement cartridges infringes a patent related to the mechanical construction of a razor cartridge and its interaction with a handle.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of multi-blade razor cartridges, focusing on features intended to improve blade stability, washability, and the pivoting action of the shaver head during use.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this is not the first patent litigation between the parties, referencing a prior action filed on December 17, 2015. This history is used to support allegations that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff’s patent activities.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-06-29	'077 Patent Priority Date
2015-12-17	Prior patent litigation between parties mentioned
2018-02-27	'077 Patent Issue Date
2018-08-23	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,902,077 - "Shaver"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,902,077, "Shaver", issued February 27, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies issues with conventional shavers, including the clogging of "sludge composed of beard and other foreign substance" between blades, which degrades performance and is difficult to wash. It also notes that weak blade fixation can decrease stability and that simple hinge mechanisms can result in poor surface contact during shaving (ʼ077 Patent, col. 1:14-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a shaver assembly designed to address these problems through a specific mechanical structure. It features a cartridge with a central "supporter" that provides an additional fixation point for the blades via "inside fixation slots," intended to enhance stability. This supporter also has a "convexly curved" rear surface that contacts an "elastic portion" of the handle, which allegedly provides an elastic, rather than merely hinged, swing operation for better skin contact. The design, including blades with downward-bent front portions, is also asserted to allow sludge to be "smoothly discharged" ('077 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-41).
• Technical Importance: The design purports to offer a more stable and effective shave by improving the mechanical support for the blades within the cartridge and refining the pivoting interface between the cartridge and handle ('077 Patent, col. 2:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’077 Patent (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A cartridge with a rectangular frame body and a plurality of blades.
  • Side fixation slots on the left and right frame portions to fix the ends of the blades.
  • A "supporter" at a center area connecting the upper and lower frame portions, where the supporter's rear surface is "convexly curved."
  • A plurality of "inside fixation slots" on the supporter to fix a rear portion of each blade.
  • A hinge portion on the cartridge's lower frame.
  • A handle body coupled to the cartridge.
  • A "hinge protrusion" on the handle that couples to the cartridge's hinge groove to allow a "swing operation."
  • An "elastic portion" projecting from the handle that contacts the supporter's convexly curved rear surface, causing the swing operation to be "elastically performed."
  • A final limitation that "the hinge protrusion protrudes externally."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶13, n.1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Gillette's FUSION5 PROGLIDE, FUSION5 PROGLIDE Power, FUSION5 PROSHIELD, FUSION5 PROSHIELD CHILL, and FUSION5 PROSHIELD Power shavers, as well as the corresponding "Accused Replacement Blades" (Compl. ¶7, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are commercially available multi-blade shaving systems consisting of a reusable handle and disposable cartridges (Compl. ¶10, ¶14). The complaint alleges that the mechanical structure of the cartridges and the way they connect to the handle incorporate the specific features of the patented invention. A photograph in the complaint shows the "rectangular frame shape" of the accused cartridge body (Compl. ¶15). The complaint asserts these products are distributed through major national retailers like CVS, Walgreens, and Target (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'077 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a cartridge body having a rectangular frame shape;	The accused products include a cartridge with a body of a rectangular frame shape. A visual in the complaint highlights this feature with a red box.	¶15	col. 2:58-59
a plurality of blades installed in the cartridge body...	The accused cartridges contain a plurality of blades installed horizontally.	¶16	col. 2:59-60
a plurality of pairs of side fixation slots... so as to fix left and right lateral ends of each of the blades;	The accused cartridges allegedly possess side fixation slots on the left and right frame portions that fix the ends of the blades.	¶17	col. 2:63-65
a supporter provided at a center area... connecting upper and lower frame portions... wherein a rear surface of the supporter includes a convexly curved surface;	The accused products are alleged to have a central supporter connecting the frame portions, with a rear surface that is convexly curved. A photograph highlights this curved surface.	¶18	col. 5:32-35
a plurality of inside fixation slots, each formed on the supporter... so as to fix a rear portion of each of the blades;	The accused supporter allegedly includes inside fixation slots to fix the rear of each blade.	¶19	col. 3:12-14
a hinge portion formed on either end of the lower frame portion... the hinge portion having a hinge groove;	The accused cartridges are alleged to have a hinge portion with a hinge groove on the lower frame.	¶20	col. 3:15-18
a handle body coupled to the cartridge body...	The accused products include a handle coupled to the cartridge.	¶21	col. 3:1-3
a hinge protrusion being coupled to the hinge groove to allow for the cartridge body to perform a swing operation;	The accused handle allegedly has a hinge protrusion that couples with the hinge groove, enabling a swing operation.	¶22	col. 5:7-11
an elastic portion projecting from an upper portion of the handle body, the elastic portion being closely contacted with the convexly curved rear surface of the supporter so that the swing operation... is elastically performed...	The accused handle is alleged to have a projecting elastic portion that contacts the supporter’s convex surface, thereby causing an elastic swing. A visual in the complaint depicts this contact point.	¶23	col. 5:22-31
wherein the hinge protrusion protrudes externally.	The complaint alleges the hinge protrusion on the accused handle protrudes externally.	¶24	col. 6:41-42

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may turn on the definition of several structural terms. A primary question is whether the central structure in the accused cartridges constitutes a "supporter" that "connects" the upper and lower frames and contains "inside fixation slots" as contemplated by the patent, or if it represents a different, non-infringing design. A photograph provided in the complaint depicts the alleged "inside fixation slots" on the accused product (Compl. ¶19).
• Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused system's pivot mechanism functions in the manner claimed. Specifically, what evidence will show that the accused handle's "elastic portion" makes contact with the supporter's "convexly curved rear surface" in a way that causes the swing operation to be "elastically performed by an elastic force," as opposed to being a simple mechanical pivot with incidental contact or flex. Another point of contention may arise from the limitation "wherein the hinge protrusion protrudes externally," as the meaning of "externally" in this context is not explicitly defined in the patent and may require judicial construction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "supporter provided at a center area ... connecting upper and lower frame portions"

• Context and Importance: This structure is central to the claim, as it is recited as having both the "inside fixation slots" for blade stability and the "convexly curved rear surface" for the elastic swing function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a wide range of central cartridge structures are covered or if the claim is limited to the specific bridge-like embodiment shown in the patent's figures.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, describing the supporter as "connecting" the frame portions, which might be argued to cover any integral central structure that serves this purpose (ʼ077 Patent, col. 6:26-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly Figure 2, depict the supporter (116) as a distinct bridge-like piece spanning an open area between the upper and lower frames (112, 114). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to structures that are separate from, rather than fully integrated with, the main cartridge body.

The Term: "swing operation of the cartridge body is elastically performed by an elastic force of the elastic portion"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the functional relationship between the handle and the cartridge, distinguishing the invention from a simple hinge. The interpretation of "elastically performed" is critical for infringement, as it requires proof of a specific type of force interaction, not just a pivoting motion.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the effect broadly, stating that the "contact force of the cartridge 100 with respect to the skin can be optimized" (ʼ077 Patent, col. 5:29-31). This focus on the outcome could support a broader definition covering any design that uses a flexible component to modulate pivot resistance.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific mechanism: "due to the convex rear surface of the supporter 116 a further optimized compression force can be applied to the cartridge body 110 by the elastic portion 216" (ʼ077 Patent, col. 5:35-38). This language could be used to argue that the claim requires a specific compressive force interaction against a convex surface, not just general flexing.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement against Gillette for its sale of the "Accused Replacement Blades" (Compl. ¶27). The inducement theory is based on Gillette allegedly instructing customers to combine the replacement blades (cartridges) with compatible handles, thereby creating the infringing system. The complaint provides a "Handle and Blade Compatibility chart" from Gillette's website as evidence of such instruction (Compl. ¶31). The contributory infringement theory alleges the replacement cartridges are a "material part of the invention," are "especially made for use in an infringing manner," and are not a "staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶34-35).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It alleges pre-suit knowledge by pointing to prior patent litigation between the parties and asserting that "Gillette has been monitoring Dorco's U.S. products and U.S. patents" since at least 2015 (Compl. ¶39-41). It further alleges that any infringement after service of the complaint is, by definition, willful (Compl. ¶37).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused Gillette cartridge feature "inside fixation slots" on a central "supporter" that functions in the manner described by the patent, or will the defense be able to demonstrate a fundamental difference in the blade retention architecture that avoids this limitation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mechanism: Can the plaintiff prove that the pivoting action of the accused shaver is "elastically performed by an elastic force" resulting from the specific interaction between the handle's "elastic portion" and the supporter's "convexly curved rear surface," or is the interaction merely incidental contact within a standard pivot design?
• The outcome may also depend on a question of definitional nuance: How will the court construe the term "protrudes externally" as applied to the "hinge protrusion"? The resolution of this seemingly minor limitation could be dispositive for infringement.