DCT
1:25-cv-20657
Distributing Co LLC v. Blulabs Brands LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FKA Distributing Co., LLC d/b/a Homedics (Michigan)
- Defendant: Blulabs Brands LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, P.L.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-20657, S.D. Fla., 02/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant is a Florida corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business located within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of BluZen lighted aromatherapy diffusers infringes two patents related to methods and systems for illuminating household products with processor-controlled, color-changing lights.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrating dynamic, multi-color LED illumination systems into consumer products, particularly those that dispense fluids or scents, to provide coordinated aesthetic and functional effects.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, or any prior licensing history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-09-27 | '300 & '436 Patents Priority Date |
| 2007-12-04 | '300 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-01-26 | '436 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,303,300 - "Methods and Systems for Illuminating Household Products," Issued Dec. 4, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of existing illuminated consumer products, which were generally restricted to fixed, single-color lighting or simple variations in brightness (’300 Patent, col. 1:37-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using processor-controlled, high-brightness light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to create dynamic, color-changing illumination effects for a wide range of household products, including those that contain or dispense fluids (’300 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:56-68). The system depicted in Figure 1 of the patent shows a processor (104) controlling a set of lights (102) to achieve this effect (’300 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled the integration of sophisticated and aesthetically pleasing lighting into common household items, allowing light to be used not just for basic illumination but also for signaling product status or creating ambiance (’300 Patent, col. 2:11-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶15, 21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 17 are:
- A system for illuminating a household fluid product or its container.
- The system includes at least one light system with a light source controllable by a processor for generating variable color radiation.
- The light system is disposed "proximate to the container."
- The system is configured to generate a selected color in response to a processor signal to illuminate the container or the fluid.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other unspecified claims of the patent (Compl. ¶22).
U.S. Patent No. 7,652,436 - "Methods and Systems for Illuminating Household Products," Issued Jan. 26, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the opportunity to enhance consumer products by combining coordinated lighting and scent effects, moving beyond products that offer only one or the other (’436 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that integrates a "scent-producing facility" with a processor-controlled, multi-color light system (’436 Patent, Abstract). This combination allows for the creation of coordinated or simultaneous scent and light displays, where the color or lighting pattern can be matched to a particular scent (’436 Patent, col. 9:26-41).
- Technical Importance: This integrated approach created a new class of multi-sensory consumer products where visual and olfactory experiences could be synchronized for aesthetic, environmental, or data-driven purposes (’436 Patent, col. 7:55-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶31, 37).
- The essential elements of independent claim 6 are:
- An apparatus comprising a "scent-producing facility" that includes a "scent-producing product."
- The apparatus also includes at least one light system with a light source controllable by a processor to generate one or more colors and/or brightness levels.
- The light system is "disposed proximate to the scent-producing facility."
- The light system is configured to generate a selected color in response to a signal from the processor.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other unspecified claims of the patent (Compl. ¶38).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are a line of "lighted aromatherapy diffusers" sold under Defendant’s BluZen brand, including but not limited to the Glass Temple, Orb, Constellation, and Alpine models (Compl. ¶13, 29).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products function as aromatherapy diffusers by using a container to hold water and essential oils, which are then dispersed to produce a scent (Compl. ¶18-19, 34-35). The products are alleged to incorporate a light system controlled by a processor to generate "variable color radiation" and are marketed with features like a "[c]olor changing warm dim hue" (Compl. ¶17, 20, 36). The image provided in the complaint shows the diffuser's container for adding water and essential oil (Compl. ¶19). The products are sold through Defendant's website and major retailers such as Macy's and CVS, placing them in direct competition with Plaintiff’s products (Compl. ¶11, 16, 32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'300 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for providing illumination for a household fluid product...and/or a container that contains the household fluid product... | The accused BluZen Diffusers are devices that include a container for holding a fluid mixture of water and essential oils. | ¶13, ¶19 | col. 5:36-44 |
| ...at least one light system, comprising at least one light source controllable by a processor for generating a variable color radiation... | The Diffusers are alleged to include a light system controlled by a processor that generates variable colors, as shown in representative images. | ¶20 | col. 5:16-20 |
| ...the light system disposed proximate to the container... | The complaint alleges the light system is disposed proximate to the fluid container, and images show light emanating from the base of the diffusers. | ¶20 | col. 5:39-44 |
| ...and configured to generate a selected color of the variable color radiation in response to a signal from the processor to illuminate the container and/or the household fluid product... | The complaint alleges the processor controls the light system to generate variable colored light to illuminate the device. | ¶20 | col. 5:16-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the accused diffusers contain a "processor" that sends a "signal." A central question for the court will be whether the electronic componentry in the BluZen diffusers meets the claim-required functionality of a processor generating a selected color in response to a signal, or if it operates via a simpler, non-infringing circuit (e.g., a pre-programmed color-cycling integrated circuit). The complaint's representative images of the Constellation diffuser depict it emitting different colors of light (Compl. ¶20).
'436 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus, comprising: a scent-producing facility that includes a scent-producing product... | The accused Diffusers are identified as aromatherapy diffusers that include a "scent-producing facility" and are used with essential oils ("scent-producing product"). | ¶35, ¶34 | col. 7:55-61 |
| ...at least one light system comprising at least one light source controllable by a processor for generating radiation of one or more colors and/or one or more brightness levels... | The complaint alleges the Diffusers include a processor-controlled light system capable of generating variable color radiation. Representative images show the device emitting different colors. | ¶36 | col. 5:1-5 |
| ...the at least one light system disposed proximate to the scent-producing facility... | The light system is alleged to be disposed proximate to the scent-producing components within the integrated diffuser unit. | ¶36 | col. 9:15-18 |
| ...and configured to generate at least one selected color of the radiation in response to the signal from the processor. | The complaint alleges the color generation is controlled by a processor in response to its signal. | ¶36 | col. 9:26-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the definition of "scent-producing facility." While the accused diffusers produce a scent, a question for the court may be whether this term, in the context of the patent's disclosure of more complex systems (e.g., those with replaceable cartridges and network connectivity), reads on a simple ultrasonic diffuser. The provided images show the diffusers operating in different color modes (Compl. ¶37).
- Technical Questions: As with the ’300 patent, the nature and operation of the "processor" will be a key factual issue.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "processor"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in both asserted independent claims and is critical to the infringement theory. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the electronic control circuits in the accused diffusers fall within the scope of the claims. The dispute may center on whether the term requires a programmable microprocessor or can encompass a simpler application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not provide an explicit, limiting definition of "processor." The specifications describe its function broadly as for "control" of the lights (’300 Patent, col. 1:60-62), which could support an argument that any component performing that function meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications frequently describe the processor in the context of advanced operations like network communication, responding to sensors, and executing complex lighting sequences, which may support an argument for a narrower construction requiring a more capable, programmable device (’300 Patent, col. 5:21-25; col. 7:46-52).
The Term: "scent-producing facility"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the apparatus defined in claim 6 of the ’436 patent. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused ultrasonic diffusers meet this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists an "air freshener" as an embodiment, which is a broad, common term that could be argued to encompass the accused diffusers (’436 Patent, col. 3:52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the "scent producing apparatus" in Figure 19 depicts a more complex system with a removable scent cartridge, an adapter for a power outlet, and a user interface, which could be used to argue that a simple reservoir-based diffuser does not meet the claimed definition (’436 Patent, Fig. 19; col. 9:12-24).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The allegations are based on Defendant providing instructions for operating the infringing products (inducement) and supplying the diffusers, which have no substantial non-infringing use when operated as intended with essential oils (contributory) (Compl. ¶26, 42).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and of its own infringement, based on its awareness of Homedics as a competitor (Compl. ¶24, 40). Based on this alleged knowledge, the complaint asserts that Defendant's infringement has been "willful, wanton, and deliberate" (Compl. ¶25, 41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s determination of the following key questions:
- A question of claim construction: What is the proper scope of the term "processor"? The case may turn on whether this term is construed broadly to include any control circuit that generates variable color, or more narrowly to require a programmable device with capabilities beyond simple, pre-set color cycling.
- A question of definitional scope: Can an ultrasonic diffuser be considered a "scent-producing facility" as that term is used in the ’436 patent? The court will need to decide if the claim covers the accused products or is limited by the patent's disclosure of more complex, cartridge-based systems.
- An evidentiary question of knowledge: Can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to prove its allegation that Defendant had actual, pre-suit knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit? Without such evidence, the claim for willful infringement may not succeed.