Zadro Products Inc v. Conair Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zadro Products, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Conair Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Baker & Hostetler LLP
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00073, D. Del., 01/17/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Conair Corporation is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of "Reflections" LED makeup mirrors infringes two patents related to illuminated, dual-sided, and continuously rotatable vanity mirrors.
• Technical Context: The patents address mechanical and electrical systems for providing 360-degree rotation of a dual-sided, internally illuminated mirror without entangling or breaking the internal power wires.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the '908 patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the '502 patent, indicating a shared specification and close technical relationship between the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,162,502, "Illuminated Continuously Rotatable Dual Magnification Mirror" (Issued April 24, 2012)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a dual-magnification mirror that can be rotated continuously to switch between sides without the risk of "twisting electrical wires used to carry electrical current to the illumination source" (’502 Patent, col. 2:11-14). Conventional designs could limit rotation or risk damaging internal wiring.
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a mirror assembly held in a yoke, where electrical power is transmitted from the base to the internal lighting through a specialized "continuously rotatable pivot joint" (’502 Patent, col. 1:15-18). This joint uses a system of electrically conductive pins on the mirror frame that rotate within conductive cups on the support yoke, allowing for uninterrupted power delivery during 360-degree rotation (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-54).
• Technical Importance: This design sought to combine the features of dual magnification, internal illumination, and unrestricted rotation in a single, battery-powered, free-standing unit.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 18, and 22 (Compl. ¶18).
• Independent Claim 1 includes these primary elements:
  • A mirror assembly with a frame and at least a first imaging reflective mirror plate with a light transmissive region.
  • An electrically energizable illumination source located within the frame.
  • A yoke with a pair of opposed arms for rotatably supporting the mirror frame.
  • An electrical power coupling mechanism that includes a "pair of laterally opposed continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joints" to provide power to the illumination source.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-9 and 23 (Compl. ¶18).

U.S. Patent No. 8,356,908, "Rotatable Dual Magnification Mirror with Internal Hoop Illuminator and Movable Reflector Ring" (Issued January 22, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation-in-part of the '502 patent, addresses similar issues but also seeks to improve the efficiency of the internal illumination system (’908 Patent, col. 2:5-11). A significant portion of light from an internal source can be directed rearward, away from the user, representing wasted energy.
• The Patented Solution: In addition to the rotatable power coupling, this invention introduces a "movable reflector ring" inside the mirror housing (’908 Patent, Abstract). This ring is designed to move "under the force of gravity" when the mirror is tilted or flipped, positioning itself to capture rearward-emitted light and reflect it forward through the translucent window of the mirror plate facing the user (’908 Patent, col. 5:38-48). It also describes an illumination source made from a "flexible hoop-shaped" printed circuit board (’908 Patent, col. 1:20-22).
• Technical Importance: This gravity-operated reflector mechanism represents a method for increasing the brightness and efficiency of an internally lit mirror without increasing power consumption.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 9 and 28 (via the range 28-32) (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 9 includes these primary elements:
  • A mirror assembly with a frame, a first reflective mirror plate, and a light transmissive region.
  • An illumination source including an "elongated, thin, narrow printed circuit board bent into an arcuately curved hoop-shaped band."
  • A yoke with opposed arms supporting the frame.
  • An electrical power coupling mechanism with continuously rotatable pivot joints.
  • A support base containing a power supply and a support structure.
• Independent Claim 28 adds the key element of a "reflector plate" that is "axially movably held within said frame" between a first and second position to reflect light.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 11 and 29-32 (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses the Conair "Reflections LED Makeup Mirror" bearing model number BEH17 of infringing the '502 patent and model number BE51LED of infringing the '908 patent (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). The allegations are also extended to other "additional mirrors with technical details that are similar in all material respects" (Compl. ¶19, ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Zadro Products and Defendant Conair "directly compete in the market for beauty mirrors and vanity mirrors" (Compl. ¶21, ¶28). The complaint does not describe the technical operation of the accused products, instead referencing Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not attached to the publicly filed complaint, for a comparison of the products to the patent claims (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4 but does not include them with the filing, stating they are "not intended to be a substitute for formal infringement contentions" (Compl. ¶18, ¶25). As such, the specific factual basis for infringement is not detailed in the body of the complaint.

The general infringement theory for the '502 patent is that Conair's making, using, and selling of the Model BEH17 mirror, and similar products, meets all the limitations of at least claims 1–9, 18, and 22–23, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶18).

Similarly, for the '908 patent, the complaint alleges that Conair's Model BE51LED mirror, and similar products, infringes at least claims 9, 11, and 28–32 (Compl. ¶25).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary factual question for the court will be whether the mechanism that allows the accused mirrors to rotate and receive power performs the specific functions required by the claims. For the '502 patent, this centers on the structure and function of the pivot joint. For the '908 patent, a key question may be whether the accused BE51LED model contains any internal, movable component that functions as the claimed "reflector plate."
• Scope Questions: The dispute will likely involve questions of claim scope. For example, does the accused product's pivot mechanism, whatever its specific design, fall within the scope of a "continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joint" as that term is used in the '502 patent? The answer will depend on evidence presented regarding the product's construction and the court's interpretation of the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '502 Patent:

• The Term: "continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joint" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term describes the central inventive concept for overcoming the wire-tangling problem in prior art. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '502 patent will likely depend heavily on whether the accused product's pivot mechanism is found to fall within the court's construction of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to solve the problem of "twisting electrical wires," enabling the mirror to be "rotatable continuously" (’502 Patent, col. 2:11-14). A party might argue the term should be construed functionally to cover any joint that achieves this result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment in detail, consisting of "electrically conductive pins" on the frame that are "rotatably supported in electrically conductive cups located in opposed arms of the yoke" (’502 Patent, Abstract). A party could argue that the term should be limited to this specific pin-in-cup structure or a close equivalent.

For the '908 Patent:

• The Term: "a reflector plate ... being axially movably held within said frame" (Claim 28)
• Context and Importance: This feature is a key distinction of the '908 patent, intended to improve illumination efficiency. Whether the accused BE51LED infringes claims reciting this element will depend on if it contains a structure that meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "axially movably held" is functional and does not specify a mechanism. A party could argue it covers any component that moves along the mirror's axis to redirect light, regardless of the actuating force.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description explain that the reflector is "movable under the force of gravity" and "falls rearward when the frame is rotated" (’908 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:38-42). A party may argue that "movably held" should be construed as being limited to a gravity-actuated component, not one moved by other means.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has been on notice of the patents "since at least since the filing of this Complaint" and that subsequent infringement is unreasonable (Compl. ¶22, ¶29). This forms the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement. The prayer for relief also requests a finding that infringement "has been, and continues to be, willful," which may suggest an intent to prove pre-suit willfulness as well, though no specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged (Prayer for Relief ¶B).

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

This dispute appears to center on foundational questions of patent law: the line between a novel invention and an existing product, and the proper scope of patent claims. The key questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of technical and factual comparison: Does the electrical and mechanical structure of the pivot point in Conair's accused mirrors function in the same way as the "continuously rotatable electrically conductive pivot joint" claimed in the '502 patent?
2. A second key evidentiary question will be one of feature existence: Does the accused Conair model BE51LED contain an internal, "axially movably held" reflector plate that redirects light as described in the '908 patent, or is this feature absent from the accused product?
3. The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: Will the court define the key patent terms broadly based on their stated function, or narrowly limit them to the specific pin-in-cup and gravity-fed embodiments detailed in the patent specifications?