DCT
0:18-cv-61786
Foreo Inc v. Minrgwholesale
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Foreo Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Exhibit A (Unknown/Foreign Jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ku & Mussman, PA.; Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP
- Case Identification: 0:18-cv-61786, S.D. Fla., 08/02/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendants are aliens engaged in infringing activities that cause harm within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ electronic facial cleansing devices, sold via online marketplaces, infringe two patents related to the structural design and vibrational function of silicone-based skin cleansers.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the personal care and beauty device market, where product design, material choice, and functional experience are significant competitive differentiators.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific prosecution history for the asserted patents, which were issued in 2018.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-01-07 | Earliest Priority Date for '065 & '884 Patents |
| 2018-02-13 | '065 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-24 | '884 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-08-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,889,065 - "SKIN CLEANSER"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,889,065, titled "SKIN CLEANSER", issued on February 13, 2018 (the “’065 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a skin cleansing device that cleans more effectively than manual methods but avoids the "abrasions or other harsh impacts" associated with existing cleaning devices (’065 Patent, col. 1:20-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld device with a soft, hygienic silicone exterior featuring arrays of rounded "touch-points." An internal oscillating motor transmits pulsations through these touch-points, creating a "tapping motion" on the skin to dislodge contaminants without the abrasive scrubbing action of traditional brushes (’065 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-58). The design includes different zones of touch-points with varying characteristics to treat different areas of the face (’065 Patent, col. 4:11-25).
- Technical Importance: The use of vibrational tapping through soft silicone touch-points represented an alternative to the rotating bristle brushes common at the time, proposing a method for deep cleaning that is simultaneously gentle and hygienic (’065 Patent, col. 5:11-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A skin cleanser body with a "substantially flat base" allowing it to stand unaided and a cross-section that is longer in one direction than another.
- A "silicone exterior" covering substantially all of the body.
- A "first side" of the exterior with two distinct textured areas: a "first set of touch-points" and a "second set of touch-points," where the second set has a smaller diameter and is "disposed closer to the base" than the first.
- A "second side" of the exterior with a "third textured surface area comprising a third set of touch-points."
- An "oscillating motor" to produce pulsations.
- "At least one control" to operate the motor.
U.S. Patent No. 10,028,884 - "SKIN CLEANSER"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,028,884, titled "SKIN CLEANSER", issued on July 24, 2018 (the “’884 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’065 Patent: the need for an effective yet non-abrasive skin cleansing device (’884 Patent, col. 1:20-28).
- The Patented Solution: Like its parent patent, the ’884 Patent describes a vibrating, silicone-bodied cleanser. It similarly focuses on the use of textured surfaces with "touch-points" of varying thickness and density to provide different cleansing effects, such as a gentle cleanse for sensitive skin or a more targeted cleanse for oilier areas around the nose and hairline (’884 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-25). The specification details how different arrangements can be specialized for different skin types, such as "normal," "men's," or "sensitive" skin (’884 Patent, col. 6:40-41; col. 7:10-12).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for creating a portfolio of specialized cleansing devices from a common technological platform, tailoring the physical user interface (the touch-points) to specific market segments and skincare needs (’884 Patent, col. 4:18-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶31).
- Essential elements of claim 15 include:
- A skin cleanser body with a "substantially flat base" and a longer-than-it-is-wide cross-sectional shape.
- A "silicone exterior" covering substantially all of the body.
- A "first side" with "first and second textured surface areas," comprising a "first set of touch-points" and a "second set of touch-points."
- A key distinction is that "at least two touch-points of the second set" must each have a diameter smaller than the diameter of "at least two touch-points of the first set."
- An "oscillating motor" to produce pulsations.
- "At least one control" to operate the motor.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Devices," which are various models of electronic facial cleansers sold by the defendants through e-commerce platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶8, 16). Specific examples cited include the "MiNRG Silicone Electric Facial Cleanser" and the "QNStar" product (Compl. ¶¶23, 32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused devices are alleged to be "knock-offs" of FOREO's LUNA™ product line (Compl. ¶8). Based on the complaint's allegations and visual evidence, the devices feature a silicone body with a flat base, an exterior surface covered in silicone projections (touch-points) of varying sizes, an internal motor that causes the device to vibrate, and external controls for operation (Compl. ¶¶23, 32). The complaint provides photographic evidence with caliper measurements to allege that the devices' physical dimensions and touch-point sizes map to the patent claims (Compl. ¶23, pp. 9, 11). The complaint alleges these products are of "lower quality and cost" and erode FOREO's market position and goodwill (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'065 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substantially flat base configured to stand unaided on a substantially flat surface, | The accused "MiNRG" device has a flat base that allows it to stand on a surface, as shown in a product photograph (Compl. ¶23, p. 8). | ¶23 | col. 6:59-62 |
| said skin cleanser body having a cross-sectional shape that is longer in a first direction substantially parallel to the base than in a second direction substantially parallel to the base; | The accused device has a body that is wider than it is thick. The complaint provides photographic evidence with caliper measurements showing a width of ~77mm and a thickness of ~24mm (Compl. ¶23, p. 9). | ¶23 | col. 6:62-65 |
| a silicone exterior covering substantially all of an exterior of said skin cleanser body... | The accused device has an outer body made of silicone, as shown in product photos and a user manual describing it as a "SILICONE ELECTRIC FACIAL CLEANSER" (Compl. ¶23, p. 10). | ¶23 | col. 5:11-13 |
| a first side defining first and second textured surface areas... the first textured surface area comprising a first set of touch-points and the second textured surface area comprising a second set of touch-points, each touch-point of the second set of touch-points having a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of each touch-point of the first set of touch-points... | The front of the accused device has two distinct areas of touch-points. The complaint provides caliper measurements purporting to show one set of touch-points with a diameter of ~1.53mm and a second set with a smaller diameter of ~0.52mm (Compl. ¶23, p. 11). | ¶23 | col. 4:11-36 |
| a second side defining a third textured surface area that is integrally formed with the silicone exterior, the third textured surface area comprising a third set of touch-points; | The back of the accused device has a textured surface with a third set of touch-points, as shown in a product photograph (Compl. ¶23, p. 12). | ¶23 | col. 4:41-44 |
| a first oscillating motor disposed within said skin cleanser body configured to produce pulsations of the skin cleanser; and | The accused device contains an oscillating motor that produces vibrations. The complaint points to the user manual, which describes the product introducing "High frequency shock waves" into the skin to support this element (Compl. ¶23, p. 13). | ¶23 | col. 2:45-48 |
| at least one control disposed on said skin cleanser body configured to operate the first oscillating motor. | The accused device has external power and intensity controls ("+", "-") on its body for operating the motor, as depicted in product photographs and a user manual diagram (Compl. ¶23, p. 14). | ¶23 | col. 4:50-55 |
'884 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substantially flat base configured to stand unaided on a substantially flat surface, said skin cleanser body having a cross-sectional shape that is longer in a first direction substantially parallel to the base than in a second direction substantially parallel to the base; | The accused "QNStar" device is shown in photographs to have a flat base and a cross-section that is wider ( |
¶32 | col. 6:59-65 |
| a silicone exterior covering substantially all of an exterior of said skin cleanser body, the silicone exterior having a first side defining first and second textured surface areas... the first textured surface area comprising a first set of touch-points and the second textured surface area comprising a second set of touch-points, at least two touch-points of the second set of touch-points each having a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of each of at least two touch-points of the first set of touch-points; | The accused device's front surface has areas with thicker and thinner touch-points. The complaint provides photographic evidence with caliper measurements indicating thicker touch-points of ~0.93mm and thinner touch-points of ~0.55mm (Compl. ¶32, p. 27). | ¶32 | col. 4:11-36 |
| a first oscillating motor disposed within said skin cleanser body configured to produce pulsations of the skin cleanser; and | The accused device has an internal motor that produces pulsations, as allegedly evidenced by a sticker on the product packaging indicating different operational states like "Work status LED light flashing" and "Charge status LED light jump" (Compl. ¶32, p. 28). | ¶32 | col. 2:45-48 |
| at least one control disposed on said skin cleanser body configured to operate the first oscillating motor. | The accused device has at least one control button on its body, labeled "Switch/开关" in a diagram on the product packaging, which is used to operate the motor (Compl. ¶32, p. 29). | ¶32 | col. 4:50-55 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A recurring issue may be the scope of the term "substantially" as it applies to the "flat base" and "parallel" dimensions. Defendants may argue that minor curvatures or features on the base of the accused products place them outside the scope of a "substantially flat" surface.
- Technical Questions: For the ’065 Patent, a question is whether the complaint's evidence sufficiently proves that the "second set of touch-points" is "disposed closer to the base than the first set," a specific positional requirement of claim 1. For both patents, a core technical question is whether the projections on the accused devices are properly characterized as "touch-points" as that term is used in the patents, which describe a specific "tapping motion" (’065 Patent, col. 2:54-55).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substantially flat base"
- Context and Importance: This structural limitation is foundational to the claimed device's overall form factor. Its construction will determine whether devices with any degree of curvature or functional indentations (e.g., for a charging port) on their bottom surface can infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims link the term to the function of being "configured to stand unaided" (’065 Patent, col. 9:15-16), suggesting that any base which achieves this function, even if not perfectly planar, could fall within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 3, depict a base (330) with a geometrically flat profile. This could support an argument that the term requires a true planar surface, excluding bases with significant rounding or instability.
The Term: "touch-points"
- Context and Importance: This is the primary functional element that interacts with the user's skin. The definition is critical, as it distinguishes the patented invention from other surface textures, such as simple bristles or ridges.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes touch-points as being made of a "soft elastic material" like silicone and having various sizes, including "thinner touch-points" and "thicker touch-points" (’065 Patent, col. 1:35-36; col. 4:11-25), suggesting flexibility in form.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly characterizes the function of the touch-points as creating a "tapping motion" that is "substantially orthogonal to the skin's surface," contrasting it with abrasive twisting or stretching (’065 Patent, col. 5:21-35). This could support a narrower construction limited to structures designed to provide this specific percussive effect. The specification also provides a specific diameter range of "0.5 to 2.5 mm" (’065 Patent, col. 1:37-38).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include counts for indirect infringement. The allegations focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) through acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused devices (Compl. ¶¶22, 31). However, the inclusion of evidence from accused products' user manuals, which instruct on the use of the devices, could potentially provide a factual basis for a future claim of induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶23, 25).
- Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful" in its infringement counts, the prayer for relief requests "A trebling of the award of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284" (Compl. ¶39(h)). This request for enhanced damages is predicated on a finding of willful or egregious infringement. The complaint alleges that Defendants "wrongfully copy FOREO's products," which suggests knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶8). No specific allegations of pre-suit notice are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A central issue will be the construction of key structural terms, particularly "substantially flat base". The outcome of this definitional question will determine if the physical forms of the various accused products, with their individual design details, fall within the literal scope of the claims.
- Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: do the silicone projections on the accused devices perform the role of the claimed "touch-points" by creating the specific "tapping motion" described in the patent specifications, or is there a material difference in their mechanical action that places them outside the claims?
- Sufficiency of Pleading: Given the number of anonymous defendants, an early case question may concern jurisdiction and proof: whether the complaint's allegations, which group numerous online sellers together, are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction and state a plausible infringement claim against each individual defendant, particularly in light of the specific visual evidence provided for only a few exemplars.