DCT
1:18-cv-01854
Gemak Trust v. Church & Dwight Co Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: GEMAK Trust (New Zealand)
- Defendant: Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01854, D. Del., 11/21/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Arm & Hammer and OxiClean brand monodose detergent products infringe two patents related to stable, water-soluble detergent compositions containing an encapsulated percarbonate compound.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the chemical formulation of single-dose laundry and dishwasher "pods" designed to be stable in water-soluble packaging, a significant product category in the consumer packaged goods market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant, as a sophisticated industry participant, has had notice of the patents-in-suit since their issuance and has known of its infringement since at least November 21, 2012, forming the basis for a willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-01-10 | '514 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 1998-07-10 | '116 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2002-11-26 | '116 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2004-09-07 | '514 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2012-11-21 | Alleged Date of Defendant's Knowledge of Infringement |
| 2018-11-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,787,514 - "Detergent compositions comprising an encapsulated percarbonate compound," issued September 7, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical challenge in creating stable, all-in-one detergent sachets. Conventional ingredients like perborates and zeolites degrade water-soluble films, while the effective bleaching agent sodium percarbonate is itself unstable when combined with other high-moisture detergent components in a single package (’514 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a granulated percarbonate compound specifically designed for use in products with water-soluble film packaging. The solution involves encapsulating the percarbonate within a protective blend of three key ingredients: a sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a nonionic surfactant. This encapsulation is described as protecting the percarbonate, extending the product's shelf life, and enabling its use in a convenient, single-compartment sachet (’514 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:48-58).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to overcome stability issues that had previously required more complex and expensive solutions, such as twin-compartment sachets, thereby enabling the development of effective and commercially viable single-dose detergent products (’514 Patent, col. 1:35-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8, along with dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶30).
- Independent Claim 1: A granulated percarbonate compound for use in detergent products storable in PVA film packaging, with the compound comprising:
- a percarbonate
- a blend encapsulating the percarbonate, wherein the blend comprises:
- a sulfate
- carboxymethyl cellulose
- a nonionic surfactant
- Independent Claim 8: A detergent product comprising the granulated percarbonate compound of Claim 1, wherein the compound is enclosed by PVA film packaging.
U.S. Patent No. 6,486,116 - "Detergent," issued November 26, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent addresses similar stability issues as the ’514 Patent, noting that conventional zeolites have high moisture content that affects the pliability and integrity of water-soluble films. It also notes the environmental concerns and forthcoming European legislation regarding phosphates in detergents (’116 Patent, col. 1:15-25, 36-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a complete detergent composition that is explicitly phosphate-free, zeolite-free, and perborate-free. It uses an encapsulated granulated percarbonate (in a blend of sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and nonionic surfactant) combined with sodium metasilicate. This specific formulation is described as being capable of stable storage in a water-soluble PVA film for at least nine months (’116 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:47-59).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific formula for a "fully built" detergent that is both stable in single-dose packaging and environmentally conscious by avoiding phosphates, addressing two key industry trends of its time (’116 Patent, col. 1:43-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1, along with dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 10-13 (Compl. ¶30).
- Independent Claim 1: A detergent composition comprising:
- a granulated percarbonate
- a blend encapsulating the percarbonate (comprising a sulphate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a nonionic surfactant)
- sodium metasilicate
- The composition does not include a zeolite, a perborate, or a phosphate
- The composition is capable of being stored in a water-soluble PVA film for at least nine months
- The composition comprises between 1% and 15% percarbonate
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Arm & Hammer® 2-in-1 Power Pak Laundry Detergent Paks" and "OxiClean® Dishwasher Detergent Paks" as representative infringing products (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are monodose, water-soluble packets used for laundry and dishwashing (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges these products are part of Defendant’s "Power Brands," which reportedly generate over 80% of its revenues and profits (Compl. ¶9). The complaint includes by reference photographs depicting the product labels for the accused products (Compl. ¶12). For example, the complaint states that Exhibits 3-4 are photographs that depict the product labels for the Arm & Hammer laundry paks (Compl. ¶12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’514 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A detergent product comprising a granulated percarbonate compound, the compound comprising a percarbonate and a blend encapsulating the percarbonate | The accused products are laundry or dishwashing detergents that comprise a granulated percarbonate compound (sodium percarbonate) and a blend that encapsulates it. | ¶11, ¶14, ¶15, ¶17 | col. 1:48-51 |
| wherein the blend comprises sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose and a nonionic surfactant | The encapsulating blend in the accused products allegedly comprises sodium sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a nonionic surfactant. | ¶17 | col. 1:52-54 |
| wherein the percarbonate compound is enclosed by PVA film packaging | The accused products are stored and sold in water-soluble PVA film packaging. | ¶23 | col. 2:10-15 |
’116 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A detergent composition comprising a granulated percarbonate and a blend which encapsulates the percarbonate, the blend comprising a sulphate, carboxymethyl cellulose and a nonionic surfactant | The accused products are detergent compositions containing a granulated percarbonate (sodium percarbonate) encapsulated by a blend of sodium sulfate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and a nonionic surfactant. | ¶15, ¶17 | col. 1:47-52 |
| wherein the detergent composition comprises sodium metasilicate | The accused products are alleged to contain sodium metasilicate. | ¶18 | col. 1:53-54 |
| and does not include a zeolite, a perborate or a phosphate | The accused products are alleged not to contain any zeolite, perborate, or phosphate. | ¶19, ¶20, ¶21 | col. 1:54-55 |
| and wherein the composition is capable of being stored in a water-soluble PVA film packaging for at least nine months | The accused products are allegedly capable of being stored in their water-soluble PVA film packaging for at least nine months. | ¶23 | col. 1:56-58 |
| and wherein the composition comprises between 1% and 15% percarbonate | The accused products allegedly comprise between 1% and 15% percarbonate. | ¶22 | col. 1:58-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "encapsulates." The court will need to determine whether this term requires a distinct physical coating around the percarbonate particles or if it can be read to cover a granulated admixture where the percarbonate is integrated with the blend components. The complaint's allegation of a "blend encapsulating the percarbonate" (Compl. ¶17) will require factual proof of the accused product's physical structure at the granular level.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, "on information and belief," that the accused products meet the negative limitations of the ’116 patent (i.e., the absence of zeolite, perborate, and phosphate) (Compl. ¶19-21). A factual dispute may arise over whether the accused products are entirely free of these substances or contain them in trace amounts, and whether any other unlisted ingredients function as equivalents. Further, the allegation that the products are "capable" of nine-month stability (Compl. ¶23) is a functional requirement that may demand empirical testing and evidence beyond a simple ingredient list.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a blend encapsulating the percarbonate" (’514 Patent, Claim 1) / "a blend which encapsulates the percarbonate" (’116 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
- This term is the technological core of both patents. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it defines the required relationship between the unstable percarbonate and the protective blend.
Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation
- The specification describes a process of adding components to a mixer to "produce a dust free granule" (’116 Patent, col. 4:22-30). This could support an interpretation where "encapsulates" refers to the formation of a composite granule or admixture, not necessarily a discrete core-shell structure.
Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation
- The plain meaning of "encapsulate" suggests enclosing or surrounding something. The stated purpose of protecting the percarbonate from instability (’514 Patent, col. 1:28-34) could support an argument that a more distinct physical barrier is required than what might result from simple mixing.
The Term: "capable of being stored... for at least nine months" (’116 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
- This functional limitation sets a specific performance standard for the claimed composition. Proving infringement requires showing not just the composition of the accused product, but also its stability over a defined period.
Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation
- The patent does not specify the exact conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity) for the nine-month storage period, which may support a reading that the capability need only be demonstrated under typical or favorable storage conditions.
Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation
- The patent's examples describe storing sachets "in various temperatures" and finding them stable, which could be used to argue that the capability must be robust across a range of realistic environmental conditions (’116 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on the allegation that Defendant distributes products that "teach third parties to use" them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶36, ¶44). Contributory infringement is supported by the allegation that there are "no non-infringing uses" of the accused products (Compl. ¶35, ¶43).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s status as a "sophisticated company" that keeps "apprised of relevant patents" and has therefore been on notice of the patents since their issuance. The complaint specifically alleges Defendant has known of its infringement "at least as of November 21, 2012," six years prior to the suit's filing (Compl. ¶37, ¶45).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "encapsulates," which describes the relationship between the percarbonate and the protective blend, be construed to cover a granulated admixture of components, or does it require a more distinct core-shell physical structure? The outcome of this claim construction will likely be dispositive for infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof for negative and functional limitations: can the Plaintiff, through discovery and testing, prove that the accused products are completely free of zeolites, perborates, and phosphates, and that they are functionally "capable" of remaining stable in their packaging for at least nine months, as required by the '116 patent?