DCT

0:25-cv-61074

Genie S Intl Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 25-cv-61074, S.D. Fla., 05/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly committing acts of patent infringement, conducting substantial business, and offering products for sale and shipment within the Southern District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ e-commerce stores on platforms like Amazon, Shein, and Temu are selling portable perfume atomizers that infringe a portfolio of seven U.S. patents related to refillable spray bottle technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns compact, travel-sized perfume atomizers designed to be easily refilled from larger, standard perfume bottles, addressing issues of air pressure and leakage during the refilling process.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a sealed list of defendants, a common strategy in cases against numerous, often anonymous, online sellers, intended to prevent defendants from moving assets or shutting down storefronts upon notice of the suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-04-20 Priority Date for ’388 and ’775 Patents
2008-12-26 Priority Date for ’938 and ’437 Patents
2011-12-20 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,079,388
2011-12-14 Priority Date for ’403 Patent
2012-11-08 Priority Date for ’528 and ’402 Patents
2014-11-11 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,881,775
2015-03-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,978,938
2016-12-20 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,522,403
2017-06-13 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,676,528
2017-08-22 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,738,437
2018-07-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,011,402
2025-05-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,978,938, "Portable Chargeable Spray Bottle", Issued March 17, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional portable spray bottles as often being complex, prone to leaks, and disposable, which is inconvenient and creates environmental waste. A key technical challenge is managing the internal air pressure that builds up during refilling, which can prevent the bottle from being filled completely. (’938 Patent, col. 1:19-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable spray bottle with a bottom-filling liquid charging structure that includes an integrated exhaust mechanism. This mechanism uses a piston with a specific groove and sealing ring that corresponds with an exhaust hole and an air duct, allowing trapped air to escape the bottle as liquid is pumped in. This coordination of liquid intake and air exhaust is designed to enable quick and complete refilling. (’938 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:11-38).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a self-contained system for refilling a travel atomizer directly from a primary perfume bottle without spillage, funnels, or disassembly, while solving the back-pressure problem that hinders refilling. (’938 Patent, col. 3:6-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Independent Claim 1. (Compl. p. 12).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A portable chargeable bottle with a body, a dispensing mechanism at the top, and a liquid charging structure at the bottom.
    • The liquid charging structure comprises a liquid charging mouth, a piston within the mouth, and a resetting structure for the piston.
    • The piston has a liquid charging passage and a groove with a sealing ring.
    • An exhaust structure with at least one exhaust hole is positioned to correspond with the piston's groove, and an air duct connects the exhaust hole to an upper portion of the bottle.
    • A dynamic seal is formed by the exhaust hole and the sealing ring.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 9,738,437, "Portable Chargeable Spray Bottle", Issued August 22, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like the ’938 patent, this invention aims to solve the problems of inconvenience and waste associated with conventional portable spray bottles. (’437 Patent, col. 1:16-34).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent discloses an alternative solution for venting air during refilling. The invention describes a nozzle assembly at the top of the dispenser that includes an exhaust structure. A specifically designed gap between the sprayer cap and the pump core wall extends from an exhaust hole to the inside of the bottle, creating a pathway for trapped air to escape to the outside. (’437 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating the air-venting path into the upper dispensing assembly, this invention offers a different engineering approach to solving the back-pressure problem, potentially allowing for a simpler design of the bottom-filling mechanism itself. (’437 Patent, col. 4:11-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Independent Claim 1. (Compl. p. 13).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A portable chargeable bottle with a body, a dispensing mechanism at the top, and a liquid charging structure at the bottom.
    • The dispensing mechanism includes a nozzle assembly with an exhaust structure (at least one exhaust hole, a sprayer cap, and a pump with a pump core wall).
    • A gap exists between the cap and the pump core wall.
    • This gap extends from the exhaust hole to the inside of the bottle, allowing exhaust air to escape.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶54).

Multi-Patent Capsule Analysis

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,522,403: Titled "Refillable Spray Bottle", issued December 20, 2016. The technology involves a refillable dispenser with a hollow injection rod and a system of seals (a first and second seal) that selectively open and close passages for liquid and gas. This allows gas to escape from the compartment while liquid enters, with a specific groove on the rod allowing gas to bypass the first seal when the dispenser is being refilled. (Compl. p. 14).

    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. p. 14).
    • Accused Features: The "Perfume injector" product is alleged to have the claimed hollow injection rod and sealing mechanism that facilitates refilling. (Compl. p. 14).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,881,775: Titled "Refill Perfume Bottle", issued November 11, 2014. This patent claims a method of refilling a perfume dispenser. The method involves providing a dispenser with a bottom refill mechanism containing a one-way check valve, removing the spray button from a source perfume bottle to expose its stem, and pushing the stem into the check valve to allow liquid to flow into the dispenser. (Compl. p. 15).

    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. p. 15).
    • Accused Features: Products sold with "How To Use 2 Steps" instructions that depict the claimed method of refilling. (Compl. p. 15).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,079,388: Titled "Refill Perfume Bottle", issued December 20, 2011. This patent describes a dispenser with a bottom refill mechanism comprising a check valve. When the stem from a source bottle is pushed into the check valve, the valve opens to receive liquid. When the stem is withdrawn, the valve closes to prevent leakage. (Compl. p. 16).

    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. p. 16).
    • Accused Features: Products advertised with instructions to "Insert a perfume hole at the bottom of the perfume sub bottle to absorb perfume," which allegedly corresponds to the claimed check valve mechanism. (Compl. p. 16).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,676,528: Titled "Encased Dispenser", issued June 13, 2017. This invention concerns a dispenser with an outer casing. A key feature is that the engagement between the main casing and the dispenser's bottom is stronger than the engagement between the cap and the dispenser's top. This prevents a user from accidentally pulling the entire casing off when they only intend to remove the cap for use. It also describes a snap-fit mechanism using a protrusion and a lip. (Compl. p. 17).

    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. p. 17).
    • Accused Features: Encased atomizer products where the cover is allegedly more strongly affixed than the cap, and which are alleged to use the claimed protrusion-and-lip engagement. (Compl. p. 17).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,011,402: Titled "Encased Dispenser", issued July 3, 2018. A continuation of the '528 patent's technology, this patent also describes a dispenser designed to receive a casing. It focuses on the specific engagement where a bottom protrusion on the dispenser and a lip on the inner surface of the cover are situated such that the lip must be forced over the protrusion to pull the cover apart. (Compl. p. 18).

    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. p. 18).
    • Accused Features: Encased atomizers alleged to have the claimed snap-fit engagement between the dispenser body and the outer cover, as depicted in the "Sealed No leaking" visual. (Compl. p. 18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are various models of "Portable Mini Refillable Perfume Atomizer Bottles" and "Perfume Injectors" sold by the Defendants through online storefronts on Amazon, Shein, Temu, and Walmart. (Compl. ¶3, pp. 12-18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are compact, travel-sized spray bottles designed to be refilled directly from a larger perfume bottle. (Compl. ¶54). Visuals in the complaint depict a "bottom filling" mechanism where the user removes the spray cap from a standard perfume bottle, presses the atomizer's base onto the exposed nozzle, and pumps it to fill. (Compl. p. 13). The complaint presents these products as "inferior imitations" that directly compete with Plaintiffs' own "TRAVALO and Perfume Pod" products, which embody the patented technology. (Compl. ¶4, ¶17, ¶23). An image from a product listing titled "How To Use 2 Steps" explicitly illustrates the accused method of use. (Compl. p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,978,938 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A portable chargeable spray bottle comprising: a body having an upper part and a bottom part; a dispensing mechanism provided at the upper part; The accused product is a portable spray bottle with a dispensing atomizer at the top and a body for holding liquid. ¶54, p. 12 col. 3:11-14
a liquid charging structure provided at the bottom part, the liquid charging structure comprising: a liquid charging mouth; a piston provided in the liquid charging mouth; and a resetting structure of the piston... The product's "Bottom filling" feature is alleged to be the claimed liquid charging structure, which functionally requires a piston and resetting mechanism to operate as advertised. ¶54, p. 12 col. 3:15-22
an exhaust structure comprising at least one exhaust hole allowing air to escape to outside the bottle wherein the exhaust hole is positioned to correspond with the groove of the piston, and an air duct extending to an upper portion of the bottle is in fluid communication with the exhaust hole... The complaint alleges that for the bottom-filling mechanism to work, an exhaust structure must be present to vent displaced air. The product image shows a "Visual window," which implies a container that must be vented. ¶54, p. 12 col. 3:26-35

U.S. Patent No. 9,738,437 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A portable chargeable bottle comprising: a body having an upper part and a lower part; a dispensing mechanism provided at the upper part; and a liquid charging structure provided at the lower part; The accused product is a portable spray bottle with a top dispensing mechanism and a bottom liquid charging structure, as depicted in the product listing. ¶54, p. 13 col. 1:40-45
wherein the dispensing mechanism further comprises a nozzle assembly comprising an exhaust structure having at least one exhaust hole, a sprayer cap, and a pump with a pump core wall; The product's top sprayer is alleged to contain the claimed nozzle assembly and exhaust structure. ¶54, p. 13 col. 2:48-50
and wherein a gap between the cap and the pump core wall, which extends from the at least one exhaust hole to inside the portable chargeable bottle, allows exhaust air to escape... The complaint alleges the product operates via a mechanism that allows air to vent from the top, which is alleged to be the claimed gap. The instructional diagram "Quickly refill perfume in 5s" shows a bottom-fill process that necessitates air exhaust. ¶54, p. 13 col. 2:50-55
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The complaint relies on external product photographs, marketing language ("Quickly refill"), and functional diagrams. (Compl. pp. 12-18). It does not, however, provide evidence of the products' internal construction. Defendants may argue that while their products achieve a similar function (bottom refilling), they do not contain the specific internal structures required by the claims, such as the coordinated "piston," "groove," and "air duct" of the ’938 patent, or the specific "gap between the cap and the pump core wall" of the ’437 patent.
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on claim construction. For example, for the ’938 patent, a central question is whether the term "exhaust structure" can be met by any mechanism that vents air, or if it must be limited to the specific embodiment comprising an air duct connected to the top of the bottle. Plaintiffs may argue for a broader functional interpretation, while Defendants will likely argue that the claims are limited to the specific structures disclosed in the specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’938 Patent:

  • The Term: "exhaust structure"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of Claim 1, defining the mechanism for solving the air back-pressure problem. Whether the accused products infringe will depend heavily on how broadly or narrowly this structural term is construed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no direct evidence of the internal air duct required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the invention as providing "an exhaust structure comprising an exhaust hole penetrating the body, whereby exhaust air flow can escape." (’938 Patent, col. 1:40-44). This could support a reading where any hole that vents air meets the definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the structure to comprise not just an "exhaust hole" but also "an air duct extending to an upper portion of the bottle" in "fluid communication with the exhaust hole." (’938 Patent, col. 3:31-35). This language, along with figures like Fig. 5 showing a distinct air duct (24), may support a narrower construction requiring this specific multi-part assembly.

For the ’402 Patent (from Multi-Patent Capsule):

  • The Term: "engagement of the cover to the bottom part of the dispenser is stronger than engagement of the cap to the top part of the dispenser"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from simple encased dispensers by claiming a functional relationship between the removal forces of two separate parts. Infringement requires not just a structural match but a testable, comparative force measurement. Practitioners may focus on this term as it presents a significant proof challenge for the plaintiff.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background explains the problem is that "frequent attempts to remove the cap for dispensing might instead remove the cover." (’402 Patent, col. 1:42-46). This purpose-driven language could support an interpretation where any design that observably avoids this problem meets the "stronger than" limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes specific engagement mechanisms, such as a "bottom protrusion" and a "lip" that must be "forced over" one another. (’402 Patent, col. 2:30-41). A defendant could argue the term "stronger" must be interpreted in the context of these specific snap-fit structures, not just as a general performance standard.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce and contribute to infringement by providing instructions and advertising that encourage end-users to perform the patented methods of refilling. (Compl. ¶53). The complaint includes visual evidence of these instructions, such as diagrams titled "How To Use 2 Steps" and "Quickly refill perfume in 5s," which allegedly direct consumers to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. p. 13, 15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and continues to be willful." (Compl. ¶56). The basis appears to be a theory of deliberate copying, with allegations that Defendants sell "inferior imitations" of Plaintiffs' commercially successful products and design their stores to "appear to be selling Plaintiffs' genuine GENIE-S products." (Compl. ¶4, ¶26).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint's infringement allegations rely heavily on external product photos and functional marketing claims. A key question is whether Plaintiffs can produce evidence—through product teardowns or discovery—that the internal mechanics of the accused products actually contain the specific, detailed structural elements recited in the asserted claims, such as the '938 patent's air duct or the '402 patent's protrusion-and-lip assembly.
  • A related key question will be one of claim scope: Will the court construe structural terms like "exhaust structure" or "engagement ... is stronger than" based on their functional results, or will it limit them to the specific mechanical embodiments disclosed in the patent specifications? The outcome of claim construction will be critical in determining whether the diverse array of accused products, sourced from numerous online sellers, fall within the scope of the patents.
  • Finally, a procedural question arises from the case structure: Given the number of anonymous, foreign-based defendants, a key challenge for Plaintiffs will be enforcement. Even if a judgment is obtained, the practical ability to identify, serve, and collect damages from a diffuse network of online sellers will be a significant factor in the litigation's ultimate outcome.