Glanta Ltd v. Soapy Care Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Glanta Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Defendant: Soapy Care Ltd. (Israel) and Soapy USA Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00365, D. Del., 02/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in Delaware based on Defendants allegedly committing acts of infringement in the district, Defendant Soapy USA Inc. being a Delaware corporation, and Defendant Soapy Care Ltd. being a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ SoapyPro line of hand washing monitoring products infringes a patent related to camera-based systems that analyze the quality and technique of hand washing motions.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using computer vision to automatically monitor and provide feedback on hand hygiene techniques, a field that gained significant market relevance in public health and institutional settings.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of the patent-in-suit and its alleged infringement via a letter dated December 22, 2022, receipt of which was acknowledged by Defendants' CEO on January 9, 2023. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for the willfulness and indirect infringement claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-05-04	’155 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-03	’155 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-22	Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2023-01-09	Defendant’s CEO acknowledges receipt of notice letter
2025-02-11	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,090,155, "Hand Washing Monitoring System," issued January 3, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that while the need for hand washing is well-known, ensuring it is done effectively is a critical challenge, noting that "hand washing technique is more important than duration" for reducing pathogen transmission (’155 Patent, col. 1:28-32). Existing monitoring systems were described as inadequate for comprehensively analyzing the quality of the hand washing motions themselves (’155 Patent, col. 2:2-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses a camera to capture images of a user washing their hands and a processor to analyze the "mutual motion of hands to determine if the hands mutually move in desired poses" and for what "durations" (’155 Patent, Abstract). The system then generates a "hand washing quality indication" based on this analysis, using techniques like creating feature vectors from the images and using classifiers to identify the hand motions (’155 Patent, col. 2:9-18, col. 3:20-39).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for automated, objective assessment of hand washing technique, rather than just monitoring presence or duration, which addresses a key weakness in institutional infection control protocols (’155 Patent, col. 1:13-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-24, 30-32, 35, and 37, all of which depend from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15). The core allegations therefore rest on infringement of independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A hand washing monitoring system comprising a camera and a processor adapted to receive images of hand washing activity,
  • wherein the processor is adapted to "analyse mutual motion of hands to determine if the hands mutually move in desired poses, and if so, the durations of the patterns," and
  • wherein the processor is further adapted to "generate a hand washing quality indication according to the analysis."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "SoapyPro and the SoapyPro Mobile products" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are used for hand hygiene training and to improve compliance with hygiene guidelines (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operations of the Accused Products, other than to allege they are used for hand washing monitoring and infringe the ’155 Patent (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint does allege that Defendants promote and sell these products throughout the United States (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit 2, which was not publicly available with the pleading. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations. Plaintiff alleges that the Accused Products infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, because they contain each limitation of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claims and the nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions.
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires analysis to determine if hands are in "desired poses." A central issue for claim construction may be the scope of this term. A question for the court will be whether "desired poses" is limited to the specific, multi-step hand-washing gestures detailed in the patent’s specification, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any set of pre-defined hand positions recognized by a computer vision system.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not detail the specific mechanism by which the Accused Products operate. Therefore, a primary evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff provides that the Accused Products in fact "analyse mutual motion of hands" to identify "poses" and their "durations" as required by Claim 1. The degree of technical overlap between the accused method and the claimed method will be a focal point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "desired poses"

• Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the claimed invention and the infringement dispute. The construction of "poses" will be critical in determining whether the functionality of the Accused Products falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either confine the patent to specific clinical routines or broaden it to cover a wider range of motion-tracking technologies.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses classifying "bimanual hand motion information" to determine if hands are in one of "different hand washing motions," which could suggest that "poses" is not an exhaustive or rigid list (’155 Patent, col. 3:30-39). The claims do not recite any specific poses, which may support a construction not limited to the examples.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section provides a detailed, eight-step "recommended technique for hand washing," including actions like "rub right palm over the back of the left hand" and "rub palm to palm with the fingers interlaced" (’155 Patent, col. 1:33-45). Further, Table 1 in the patent explicitly lists and categorizes different "Poses" (Pose 1, Pose 2, etc.), which could be used to argue that "desired poses" should be construed as being limited to these or similar structured, pre-defined clinical gestures (’155 Patent, col. 12, Table 1).

• The Term: "hand washing quality indication"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the claimed system. The dispute may turn on what type of output satisfies this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, suggesting any output that conveys the result of the analysis—such as a numerical score, a pass/fail signal, or a color-coded status—could meet the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the system "displays on the simple low-power display 6 permanent graphics of the individual hand poses" to show the user "that each pose has been achieved" (’155 Patent, col. 12:4-8). This could support an argument that the "indication" must be more specific than a general quality score and must provide feedback tied to the completion of the constituent poses.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants have "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce" infringement by third parties since receiving actual notice of the ’155 Patent (Compl. ¶19). As a factual basis, the complaint points to a partnership with Lovell Government Services to "provide Accused Products to customers in the federal healthcare system," who would then use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶19).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate since at least December 22, 2022, the date of a notice letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel (Compl. ¶20). The allegation is supported by the claim that Defendants' CEO acknowledged receipt of this letter on January 9, 2023, establishing pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶18).

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court's determination of several central issues:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "desired poses," which is described in the patent in the context of specific clinical hand-washing routines, be construed broadly enough to read on the particular hand motion analysis, if any, performed by the Accused Products?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the limited technical detail in the pleading, what evidence will emerge to demonstrate that the Accused Products' software architecture and operational methods perform the specific steps of analyzing "mutual motion" to identify "poses" and their "durations" in a manner that meets the limitations of Claim 1?