DCT
1:22-cv-00332
Ddrops Co v. MOM Enterprises LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ddrops Company (Ontario, Canada), Reinhold Vieth (Canada), and Elaine Vieth (Canada)
- Defendant: MOM Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Mommy's Bliss (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Connolly Gallagher LLP
- Case Identification: Ddrops Company v. MOM Enterprises, LLC, 1:22-cv-00332, D. Del., 03/16/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s infant vitamin D supplement, through its composition and instructed method of use, infringes a patent for delivering vitamin D in a medium-chain triglyceride oil base by applying a drop to an object for an infant to suck.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to nutritional supplements for infants, specifically methods for administering vitamin D to address deficiencies common in breast-fed babies, a significant market segment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs have successfully enforced the patent-in-suit and its Canadian counterpart against other infringers since 2015 and 2008, respectively, resulting in stipulations of infringement and cessation of sales by those parties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-09-14 | ’958 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-11-04 | Plaintiffs begin enforcement of related Canadian Patent |
| 2015-06-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,066,958 Issues |
| 2015-06-30 | Plaintiffs begin enforcement of ’958 Patent in the U.S. |
| 2021-01-01 | Defendant allegedly reformulates product to use infringing method (approx. date) |
| 2022-03-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,066,958, "Vitamin D Compositions and Method of Administration to a Human Being," issued June 30, 2015.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of administering vitamin D to infants, particularly breast-fed infants who require supplementation. Prior methods often involved large volumes of aqueous solutions that infants would spit out, leading to inaccurate dosing, poor compliance, and potential gagging. These solutions often contained unnatural ingredients and had unpleasant tastes (’958 Patent, col. 2:30-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for delivering vitamin D using a concentrated, single-drop composition where the vitamin is dissolved in a medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil. This single drop is applied to an exterior surface, such as a mother's nipple or a pacifier, from which the infant sucks the composition. The MCT oil is sufficiently viscous to adhere to the surface without dripping off, ensuring the infant receives the full dose in a manner that is natural and efficient (’958 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-14).
- Technical Importance: The method was designed to provide a "more suitable, safer and efficient way" of supplementing infant vitamin D, improving dosing accuracy and parental compliance compared to prior dropper-based liquid administration (’958 Patent, Abstract).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A method of delivering vitamin D to a human.
- Applying one drop of a composition to an exterior surface of an object.
- The composition consists of a specific concentration (9 to 9000 mcg/ml) of vitamin D in a liquid triglyceride of 6 to 12 carbon chain length.
- The drop adheres to the surface of the object.
- Having the human being suck or lick the composition from the object.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims from the ’958 Patent (Compl. ¶47).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Mommy's Bliss" brand "Baby Vitamin D" drops, specifically the version reformulated "sometime in 2021" to contain Medium Chain Triglyceride (MCT) Oil (Compl. ¶31, ¶32).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused product is a liquid vitamin D supplement for infants. Its packaging allegedly instructs users to "Tilt bottle and squeeze gently to dispense one drop. Place one drop daily onto mother's nipple or a pacifier, or mix with formula, breast milk, juice, or other foods" (Compl. ¶38). The product's ingredients are listed as "Vitamin D3" and "Organic Medium Chain Triglyceride (MCT) Oil" (Compl. ¶37). The complaint alleges that MOM switched its formula from sunflower oil to MCT oil specifically to "make it a copy" of the Plaintiffs' competing "Baby Ddrops" product (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’958 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of delivering a nutritional or therapeutic amount of vitamin D to a human being, said method comprising: (i) applying one drop of a composition consisting of a nutritional or therapeutic effective amount of 9 to 9000 mcg/ml vitamin D in a liquid triglyceride of 6 to 12 carbon chain length... | The accused product is a vitamin D supplement for infants, and its instructions direct applying "one drop daily" (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges a chemical analysis confirms the product contains vitamin D within the claimed concentration range and uses a liquid triglyceride of C8, C10, and C12 fatty acids, which fall within the 6 to 12 carbon chain length requirement (Compl. ¶42a). The product packaging confirms the use of MCT oil (Compl. ¶37). | ¶38, ¶42a | col. 10:1-4 |
| ...to an exterior surface of an object... | The product's instructions direct the user to "Place one drop daily onto mother's nipple or a pacifier" (Compl. ¶38). The complaint also references online videos showing the product being dispensed onto a finger (Compl. ¶42e). | ¶38, ¶42e | col. 10:5-9 |
| ...wherein said drop adheres to the surface of said object; and | The complaint does not explicitly allege adherence but implies it by asserting that the accused method infringes the claim. The patent itself teaches that MCT oil is sufficiently viscous to adhere to a surface like a nipple without immediately dripping (’958 Patent, col. 6:35-42). The image provided in the complaint shows the product uses "Organic Medium Chain Triglyceride (MCT) Oil" as its main ingredient besides Vitamin D3 (Compl. p. 7). | ¶41, ¶42a | col. 10:9-10 |
| (ii) having said human being suck or lick said composition directly from said object. | The instructions to place the drop on a mother's nipple or a pacifier, followed by the infant's natural interaction, allegedly constitute instructions to have the infant "suck or lick" the composition from the object (Compl. ¶38, ¶43). | ¶38, ¶43 | col. 10:11-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations appear to map the accused product's composition and instructed use very closely to the claim language. A potential area of dispute may concern the functional limitation "adheres to the surface." The question for the court will be whether the accused product's formulation demonstrates the level of adherence contemplated by the patent, which describes liquids that do not immediately "drip or roll away" (’958 Patent, col. 6:35-42).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the evidence from the "chemical analysis" cited in the complaint confirms that the accused product's vitamin D concentration and triglyceride composition fall within the claimed ranges (Compl. ¶42a). While the packaging label suggests the concentration is within range, discovery will be needed to verify the exact chemical makeup.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "liquid triglyceride of 6 to 12 carbon chain length"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the required oil carrier for the vitamin D. Infringement hinges on whether the Defendant's "Organic Medium Chain Triglyceride (MCT) Oil" (Compl. ¶37) falls within this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, covering any triglyceride mixture that meets the specified carbon chain lengths, regardless of its source or other properties.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses MCTs as being derived from coconut or palm oil and consisting "not less than 95 percent of saturated fatty acids having 8 to 10 carbon atoms" (’958 Patent, col. 5:20-28). A party could argue that this description limits the scope of the term to triglycerides that meet this more specific compositional profile.
The Term: "adheres to the surface"
- Context and Importance: This functional limitation distinguishes the invention from prior art liquids that might drip or run off a surface too quickly for an infant to consume. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires proving the accused product performs this specific function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not set a strict numerical or time-based standard for adherence, suggesting any performance superior to a non-adherent liquid like water could meet the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the inventive oil with water-based emulsions that "drips off" a nipple and describes an experiment where the inventive drop remains on a nipple for at least 10 seconds (’958 Patent, Table 1; col. 6:49-51). A party might argue that "adheres" requires, at a minimum, the ability to remain in place for this duration.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis is that MOM allegedly instructs end-users to perform the patented method through directions on its product packaging and bottle, as well as in online advertising and demonstration videos (Compl. ¶38, ¶43, ¶50).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that MOM was aware of the ’958 Patent because it is marked on Plaintiffs’ competing product and because Plaintiffs provided MOM with "written notice" of the patent and its infringement (Compl. ¶29, ¶48). The complaint further alleges that MOM intentionally copied Plaintiffs' product by switching its oil base from sunflower oil to MCT oil (Compl. ¶32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue appears to be one of deliberate action and intent: given the allegations that Defendant knew of the patent and reformulated its product to "make it a copy" of Plaintiffs' patented product, a key question will be whether Defendant's conduct was willful. The outcome could significantly impact potential damages.
- The case may also turn on a question of functional performance: does the accused "Mommy's Bliss" product, when dispensed as a single drop, in fact meet the functional requirement that it "adheres to the surface" as understood in the context of the ’958 Patent? While the complaint’s allegations are direct, the evidentiary proof of this physical property will be a necessary component of the infringement case.