DCT
1:25-cv-00747
Michael Todd Beauty LP v. Rhinosystems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Michael Todd Beauty LP (Delaware)
- Defendant: RhinoSystems, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC; Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00747, D. Del., 08/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business in Delaware and directed enforcement activities at retailers with the intent to harm Plaintiff’s sales within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its NasalFresh MD® device does not infringe two of Defendant’s patents related to nasal irrigation technology and that the patents are invalid.
- Technical Context: The dispute involves powered nasal irrigation devices, a consumer health product category for treating sinus-related conditions by rinsing the nasal cavity.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to this lawsuit, Defendant asserted U.S. Patent No. 12,178,953 against Plaintiff to retailers Amazon and CVS, demanding removal of Plaintiff's product and initiating Amazon’s Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) procedure. Defendant later notified Plaintiff of the issuance of a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 12,310,918.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-06 | U.S. Patent No. 12,310,918 Priority Date |
| 2011-07-18 | U.S. Patent No. 12,178,953 Priority Date |
| 2024-12-31 | U.S. Patent No. 12,178,953 Issues |
| 2025-05-19 | Defendant sends correspondence to CVS alleging infringement |
| 2025-05-27 | U.S. Patent No. 12,310,918 Issues |
| 2025-05-27 | Defendant initiates Amazon APEX procedure against Plaintiff |
| 2025-05-28 | Amazon notifies Plaintiff of APEX procedure |
| 2025-06-11 | Plaintiff provides non-infringement analysis to Defendant |
| 2025-06-13 | Defendant notifies Plaintiff of newly issued ’918 Patent |
| 2025-08-11 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,178,953 - "Nasal Irrigation Device and System With Faux Collapsible Cartridge Element"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional nasal irrigation systems, such as neti pots or squeeze bottles, as lacking portability and convenience because they require users to mix saline from salt packs or use pre-mixed bottles of solution (’953 Patent, col. 3:53-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained nasal irrigation device designed to use a disposable cartridge containing a saline concentrate. The device includes a "mechanics module assembly" with a tower and a "hinged lid" (26) (’953 Patent, col. 4:8-13, 31-34). When a user places a concentrate capsule into the tower and closes the lid, the mechanism pierces the capsule, releasing its contents into a water reservoir to create the irrigation solution, enhancing portability (’953 Patent, col. 4:11-14).
- Technical Importance: The approach aims to simplify the preparation of saline solution for nasal irrigation by replacing manual mixing with a convenient, single-use cartridge system, akin to a single-serve coffee maker.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶45).
- Claim 1 requires, among other elements:
- A first reservoir for receiving the irrigant
- A second reservoir
- An openable lid, wherein the first reservoir is disposed about the lid
- A fluid passageway for communicating the irrigant between reservoirs via a user's nasal cavity
- A vacuum source
- A valve for releasing the irrigant
- A switch for controlling the vacuum source
- Claim 10 is similar but recites a "mechanics module housing" and an "openable lid assembly surrounded by the first reservoir" (Compl. ¶47).
- The complaint states that because it does not infringe the independent claims, it does not infringe any dependent claims (Compl. ¶45).
U.S. Patent No. 12,310,918 - "Systems and Methods for Nasal Irrigation"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks in prior art methods: gravity-based systems (e.g., neti pots) are messy and require awkward positioning, while pressure-based systems (e.g., squeeze bottles) can create "undesired, painful, and even harmful pressures" (’918 Patent, col. 3:32-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a hand-held device that combines gravitational force with "gentle powered suction" (’918 Patent, col. 4:6-12). It is configured with a saline source receptacle positioned above an effluent (waste) receptacle, allowing gravity to initiate fluid flow into one nostril. A vacuum source then draws the fluid through the nasal cavity and into the effluent receptacle, creating a controlled, gentle flow without applying positive pressure (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:40-56).
- Technical Importance: This dual-force system (gravity plus suction) is presented as a safer and more comfortable alternative to systems that rely solely on gravity or positive pressure, aiming to enhance both efficacy and user experience.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
- Claim 1 requires, among other elements:
- A source receptacle and an effluent receptacle
- A housing with a nasal interface comprising first and second nozzles
- The nasal interface and source receptacle are located above the effluent receptacle
- A fluid passageway comprising a supply conduit from the source to the first nozzle and an effluent conduit from the second nozzle to the effluent receptacle
- The supply conduit is "separate and distinct" from the effluent conduit
- A vacuum source for applying a relative vacuum
- The complaint states that because it does not infringe the independent claim, it does not infringe any dependent claims (Compl. ¶73).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The NasalFresh MD® Device ("NasalFresh Device") (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the NasalFresh Device as a nasal irrigation device sold nationwide through Plaintiff's website and online retailers like Amazon and in stores like CVS (Compl. ¶2).
- The device includes a "removable cap" which is a single piece of injection-molded plastic that rests on and snaps to the top of the upper saline reservoir (Compl. ¶58). It does not use "capsules" or "cartridges" (Compl. ¶60).
- The device's fluid path is described as including a clean liquid tank, a waste liquid tank, coupling members, a positive pressure rinsing pump, a negative pressure suction pump, and a series of tubes connecting these components to the nasal inserts (Compl. ¶78).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff (MTB) alleges non-infringement. The following table summarizes MTB's stated reasons why the accused product's features do not meet the patent claim limitations.
U.S. Patent No. 12,178,953 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an openable lid, | The NasalFresh Device has a "removable cap" that is a single piece of plastic. Plaintiff argues this is not an "openable lid" as understood in the patent, which it contends requires a hinged component attached to the device. The complaint provides a photograph showing this component. (Compl. ¶58). | ¶¶58, 61 | col. 4:31-34 |
| wherein the first reservoir is disposed about the lid; | The cap of the NasalFresh Device rests on top of the reservoir, rather than being surrounded by it. Plaintiff argues that prosecution history amendments emphasized that "disposed about" means the reservoir is "disposed circumferential around the lid in a surrounding manner." | ¶¶56, 59 | col. 8:39-41 |
| [Implicit function related to cartridge use] | The complaint alleges a key novelty of the '953 Patent is its use of a disposable cartridge system. The NasalFresh Device does not use cartridges, and its cap "plays no role in opening or authenticating such capsules or cartridges." | ¶¶51, 60 | col. 3:53-56 |
| [Claim 10: an openable lid assembly] | Plaintiff alleges the single-piece plastic cap of its device is not a multi-part "assembly" as required by claim 10. | ¶61 | col. 8:16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will be the construction of "openable lid." Does the term, in the context of the patent, require a hinged attachment as Plaintiff argues, or can it read on a fully removable cap? Further, what is the scope of "disposed about"? Does it require full circumferential positioning, or can it cover a cap resting on top of a reservoir?
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises the question of whether the claimed "lid" is functionally tied to the cartridge-piercing mechanism described in the specification (’953 Patent, col. 4:31-36). The court may need to determine if a component on a device that does not use cartridges can meet a claim limitation whose described function is entirely related to cartridge use.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "openable lid" (Claim 1) / "openable lid assembly" (Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of Plaintiff's non-infringement argument for the ’953 Patent. Its construction will determine whether the accused product's "removable cap" falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint explicitly contrasts the removable nature of the accused cap with the hinged embodiment described in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "openable lid" without expressly requiring a hinge. A party could argue that "openable" does not inherently exclude "removable."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint points to specification language that repeatedly refers to the component as a "hinged lid 26" (’953 Patent, col. 4:10). The specification also describes the lid as a component of the "mechanics module assembly" and part of a "capsule tower assembly," which Plaintiff argues implies a component integrated with the device, not a simple removable cap (Compl. ¶52; ’953 Patent, col. 4:31-34).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "openable lid," described in the '953 Patent specification as a "hinged lid" integral to a cartridge-piercing mechanism, be construed to cover the simple "removable cap" of the accused device, which uses no cartridges?
- A key structural question will be one of functional correspondence: Does the accused device’s fluid path, which includes multiple tubes and separate positive- and negative-pressure pumps, constitute the "supply conduit" and "effluent conduit" claimed in the '918 Patent, or is there a fundamental structural and operational mismatch as alleged in the complaint?
- An underlying procedural question is the impact of Defendant's pre-suit enforcement: The complaint is a response to Defendant's assertions to major retailers. How these actions frame the controversy and potentially influence future claims for damages or willfulness, should infringement be found, will be a significant aspect of the litigation.