DCT
1:23-cv-01093
Sphere USA LLC v. Gillette Co LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sphere USA, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The Gillette Company, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01093, D. Del., 10/03/2023
- 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 state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Gillette FlexBall line of razors infringes two patents related to a multi-axis pivoting mechanism for a razor head.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical joints for personal grooming razors, designed to allow the blade cartridge to better follow the contours of a user's face or body during shaving.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history between the parties beginning in 2010, when the inventor purportedly disclosed the technology to Defendant’s parent company, Procter & Gamble. Plaintiff alleges it sent Defendant a notice letter with a claim chart for one of the patents-in-suit in November 2020. Notably, Defendant filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging the validity of the ’486 Patent in March 2022. In September 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) terminated the proceeding, finding the patent was not eligible for PGR because it was entitled to the priority date of an earlier application, leaving the patent’s validity unadjudicated in that forum.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-08-11 | Priority Date for ’486 and ’572 Patents |
| 2010 | Inventor allegedly contacts Defendant's parent company |
| 2011-02-18 | Filing date of parent patent application |
| Early 2014 | Defendant launches the Accused "FlexBall" product line |
| 2018-02-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,889,572 Issues |
| 2020-11-10 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding the ’572 Patent |
| 2022-02-01 | U.S. Patent No. 11,235,486 Issues |
| 2022-03-24 | Defendant files Post-Grant Review petition against the ’486 Patent |
| 2022-09-23 | PTAB institutes trial for Post-Grant Review of the ’486 Patent |
| 2023-09-19 | PTAB terminates Post-Grant Review of the ’486 Patent |
| 2023-10-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,235,486 - RAZOR WITH CUTTING BLADE ROTATABLE ABOUT MULTIPLE AXES (Issued Feb. 1, 2022)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that shaving non-flat body surfaces requires a "certain level of dexterity" from the user and that prior art razors, which often pivot on only a single axis, provide a "limited range of motion," making a comprehensive shave difficult (ʼ486 Patent, col. 1:25-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a razor with a handle that terminates in a "pivot sphere." A detachable blade cartridge connects to this sphere via a "clevis" (a U-shaped bracket with two legs). This structure allows the cartridge to pivot freely about multiple axes to better follow the body's contours. To prevent "extreme or unusual orientations," the mechanism includes a "stop" on the pivot sphere that physically interacts with the clevis to limit the cartridge's range of motion (ʼ486 Patent, col. 2:42-57; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The design provides multi-axis rotation for a razor cartridge, intended to improve contact with the skin over varied contours compared to single-pivot designs (ʼ486 Patent, col. 1:30-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 16. Claim 1, directed to a "personal grooming apparatus," includes the following essential elements:
- A handle with an attachment portion that includes a "pivot member having an at least partially spheroid portion."
- A cartridge with at least one cutting blade.
- Rotation is enabled by the pivot member being held between "spaced-apart ends of two opposed legs" (a clevis).
- A "stop extending outward from the at least partially spheroid portion" of the pivot member.
- The stop is configured to "limit rotation of the cartridge by interacting with a relief portion of at least one of the two opposed legs."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶34).
U.S. Patent No. 9,889,572 - RAZOR WITH CUTTING BLADE ROTATABLE ABOUT MULTIPLE AXES (Issued Feb. 13, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ʼ572 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ʼ486 Patent: the inadequacy of limited-motion razor pivots for shaving contoured surfaces (ʼ572 Patent, col. 1:20-33).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is fundamentally the same as in the ʼ486 Patent, utilizing a spherical pivot member on the handle and a clevis on the cartridge (ʼ572 Patent, Abstract). The independent claims of this patent add a more specific structural requirement for how the pivot member is retained by the clevis, specifying that the legs of the clevis have "respective holes formed therein" and the pivot member is held between these holes (ʼ572 Patent, col. 6:65-col. 7:2).
- Technical Importance: This patent, part of the same family as the '486 Patent, describes a specific mechanical implementation of a multi-axis pivot for improving razor performance (ʼ572 Patent, col. 1:20-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Claim 1, directed to a "personal grooming apparatus," recites a similar structure to Claim 1 of the ʼ486 Patent but adds a key limitation:
- A handle with a pivot member having an "at least partially spherical surface."
- A cartridge removably attached to the attachment portion.
- A clevis with "two opposed legs" enabling rotation.
- A "stop" extending from the pivot member to limit rotation by interacting with a "relief portion" of the clevis.
- A specific retention mechanism: "wherein the two opposed legs of the clevis have respective holes formed therein, and wherein the spherical pivot member is pivotably held between the holes formed in the two opposed legs of the clevis."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶46).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Gillette ProGlide Razor" and "Gillette ProGlide Shield Razor," which utilize Gillette's "FlexBall" technology (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶16, 18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are handheld razors featuring a handle and a replaceable blade cartridge (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint alleges their key functionality includes an attachment portion with a "pivoting mechanism which is partially spherical" (Compl. ¶21). This mechanism is allegedly "held between the spaced apart ends of a clevis (or opposed legs)" to allow the cartridge to rotate (Compl. ¶22). The complaint further alleges that to limit this rotation, the products "contain a protrusion which interacts with a relief portion of the clevis" and that the ends of the clevis have "holes through which the pivtoing [sic] mechanism is held" (Compl. ¶22-23). An image in the complaint depicts the cartridge being attached to the handle, showing the spherical nature of the pivot point. (Compl., p. 5). Gillette is alleged to have marketed the FlexBall technology as "the next evolution in our shaving revolution," designed to "maximize contact with every contour of a man’s face" (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’486 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handle having a gripping portion and an attachment portion, the attachment portion including a pivot member having an at least partially spheroid portion | The Accused Products contain a handle with a gripping portion and an attachment portion with a pivoting mechanism that is "partially spherical." | ¶21 | col. 3:32-37 |
| a cartridge supporting at least one cutting blade | The Accused Products have a "removable and replacable [sic] cartridge with cutting blades." | ¶21 | col. 4:4-5 |
| wherein rotation of the cartridge is enabled by retention of the pivot member between spaced-apart ends of two opposed legs... | The pivoting mechanism is "held between the spaced apart ends of a clevis (or opposed legs), which allows the cartridge to rotate." | ¶22 | col. 4:4-13 |
| a stop extending outward from the at least partially spheroid portion of the pivot member and configured to limit rotation of the cartridge... | The Accused Products "contain a protrusion which interacts with a relief portion of the clevis" in order to "limit the the [sic] total amount of rotation." | ¶22 | col. 5:8-14 |
| wherein the stop is configured to limit rotation of the cartridge by interacting with a relief portion of at least one of the two opposed legs. | The alleged "protrusion" (stop) on the pivoting mechanism interacts with a "relief portion of the clevis" to limit rotation. | ¶22 | col. 6:8-11 |
’572 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handle having a gripping portion and an attachment portion, the attachment portion including a pivot member having an at least partially spherical surface | The Accused Products contain a handle with an attachment portion containing a "pivoting mechanism which is partially spherical." | ¶21 | col. 3:20-23 |
| a cartridge removably attached to the attachment portion and supporting at least one cutting blade | The Accused Products have a "removable and replacable [sic] cartridge with cutting blades" attached to the handle. | ¶21 | col. 4:4-6 |
| wherein rotation of the at least one cutting blade is enabled by a clevis comprising two opposed legs... | Rotation is enabled by a "clevis (or opposed legs)" holding the pivoting mechanism. | ¶22 | col. 4:4-7 |
| a stop extending from and above the at least partially spherical surface of the pivot member... | The Accused Products contain a "protrusion" on the pivoting mechanism to limit rotation. | ¶22 | col. 5:1-5 |
| wherein the stop is configured to limit rotation of the cartridge by interacting with a relief portion of at least one of the two opposed legs of the clevis | The alleged "protrusion" (stop) interacts with a "relief portion of the clevis." | ¶22 | col. 6:62-65 |
| and wherein the two opposed legs of the clevis have respective holes formed therein, and wherein the spherical pivot member is pivotably held between the holes... | "The ends of the clevis of the Accused Products contain holes through which the pivtoing [sic] mechanism is held and attached to the clevis (or opposed legs)." | ¶23 | col. 4:21-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement case may turn on the interpretation of functional language. A primary question is whether the accused "protrusion" (Compl. ¶22) meets the definition of a "stop" as claimed. The dispute may focus on whether the primary purpose and operational effect of the accused feature is to "limit rotation" in the manner described by the patents, or if it serves a different function.
- Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over the precise interaction between the accused product's "protrusion" and its "relief portion of the clevis" (Compl. ¶22). The court will have to analyze whether this interaction performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the patented invention.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "stop"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for both patents. The complaint alleges a "protrusion" on the Accused Products functions as the claimed "stop" (Compl. ¶22). The definition of "stop" will be critical, as Defendant may argue its feature is structurally or functionally distinct from what the patents disclose and claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the "stop" functionally as being "configured to limit rotation" ('486 Patent, cl. 1). The specification supports this, stating the stop is "sized and positioned to obstruct the clevis, and thereby limit its range of motion" ('486 Patent, col. 5:11-13). This language could support an interpretation covering any structure that achieves this limiting function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments, such as a "simple circular cylindrical projection" or planes formed by deforming a spherical section ('486 Patent, col. 5:22-23, 5:40-46). A party could argue the term should be construed more narrowly in light of these specific examples, particularly if the accused "protrusion" has a different shape and interacts with the clevis in a different manner.
The Term: "at least partially spheroid portion" / "at least partially spherical surface"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core geometry of the pivot. The complaint alleges the accused mechanism is "partially spherical" (Compl. ¶21). The scope of this term will determine how closely the accused pivot must resemble a sphere to infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "at least partially" suggests the shape does not need to be a perfect or complete sphere. The specification reinforces this by disclosing that the pivot sphere may be formed by "a plurality of elements...approximating a sphere" ('486 Patent, col. 3:38-40), indicating that an ideal geometric form is not required.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While allowing for imperfection, the term is still tied to a "spheroid" or "spherical" geometry, which enables the multi-axis rotation that is the patent's stated goal. A party could argue that a mechanism operating on a different geometric principle (e.g., a pure gimbal or rocker joint) would not be "at least partially spheroid," even if it allows for some multi-axis movement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant knowingly and willfully infringed both patents (Compl. ¶36, 48). The allegations of knowledge are based on specific events:
- For the ʼ572 Patent, Plaintiff alleges sending a letter on November 10, 2020 that provided a "claim chart showing how the Accused Products infringe" (Compl. ¶19). Continued sales after this date are alleged to be willful (Compl. ¶47).
- For the ʼ486 Patent, Defendant’s knowledge is evidenced by its own action of filing a petition for Post-Grant Review against the patent on March 24, 2022, more than a year before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶24). Continued sales after this date are alleged to be willful (Compl. ¶35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and infringement: can the "protrusion" in Defendant's FlexBall mechanism be properly characterized as a "stop" that is "configured to limit rotation" in the manner required by the claims? The outcome will depend on whether the court adopts a broad functional definition or a narrower one tied more closely to the patent's disclosed embodiments.
- A second central question will concern willfulness and damages. Given the complaint's detailed allegations of pre-suit history—including alleged disclosures to Defendant's parent company, a 2020 notice letter for one patent, and Defendant's own unsuccessful 2022 administrative challenge to the other—the court will examine Defendant's state of mind and whether it can demonstrate a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity that would defeat a finding of willfulness.