1:25-cv-21581
Tolife Tech Pty Ltd v. Individuals Corps Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ToLife Technologies Pty Ltd (Australia) and Moshe Maor (Australia)
- Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Primarily People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-21581, S.D. Fla., 04/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants committing acts of patent infringement in the district, including offering to sell and shipping products to consumers in Florida, and otherwise conducting substantial business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that numerous online merchants, identified collectively on a sealed schedule, are selling "counterfeit" products that infringe a U.S. design patent covering an ornamental design for a lice comb.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is a handheld, vacuum-assisted electric comb designed for the physical removal of head lice and their eggs from hair.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a group of unnamed or pseudonymous online sellers, a common strategy to combat diffuse online infringement from foreign entities. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative challenges related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-01 (approx.) | ToLife began marketing and promotion of V-COMB brand (per complaint) |
| 2019-04-22 | U.S. Patent No. D858,877 Application Filing Date |
| 2019-09-03 | U.S. Patent No. D858,877 Issue Date |
| 2025-04-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D858,877 - "LICE COMB"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D858,877, "LICE COMB", issued September 3, 2019 (’877 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’877 Patent does not contain a background section or describe a technical problem; its purpose is to protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of the article of manufacture shown in its drawings (Compl. ¶2; ’877 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a lice comb. Key ornamental features illustrated in the patent figures include a main body that tapers from a wider rear section to a narrower mid-section, a transparent cylindrical capture filter area, and a flared head containing the comb teeth (’877 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The design creates a distinct, integrated visual impression for a handheld grooming device.
- Technical Importance: While the patent protects ornamental design, the complaint frames the commercial embodiment of the design, the V-COMB product, as having received international design awards, suggesting its appearance has been recognized for its design quality (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the single claim of the ’877 Patent (Compl. ¶55-58).
- The claim is for: "The ornamental design for a lice comb, as shown." (’877 Patent, Claim). The core visual elements that constitute this design include:
- The overall profile and configuration of the device, including the flared head, transparent mid-section, and tapering handle.
- The relative proportions and transitions between these sections.
- The specific shape and arrangement of the comb teeth assembly at the head of the device.
- The surface contours and features as depicted in the various elevation views.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "Counterfeit Products" which are described as electric vacuum combs for lice removal (Compl. ¶3, ¶55). The complaint provides examples of products sold under brand names such as "ASPENX" and "TubBek" on e-commerce platforms like Amazon (Compl. p. 13, 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are alleged to be electric lice combs that use suction to capture lice and eggs in a disposable filter (Compl. p. 15). The complaint alleges these are "inferior imitations" of Plaintiffs' genuine V-COMB products, sold through a network of "Defendant Internet Stores" designed to appear as legitimate retailers to unknowing consumers (Compl. ¶5, ¶28). The complaint further alleges that Defendants use Plaintiffs' "V-COMB" trademark in product descriptions to attract customers (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products sold by Defendants are visually so similar to the patented design that they infringe the ’877 Patent. The infringement test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint presents a direct visual comparison to support its allegation (Compl. ¶56). An image from the ’877 Patent is provided in the complaint body. (Compl. p. 14). The complaint also provides a screenshot of an exemplary accused product listing on an internet store. (Compl. p. 15).
’877 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the ornamental design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a lice comb, as shown in the patent figures | The accused "Counterfeit Products" are alleged to embody and be a "colorable imitation" of the designs claimed in the ’877 Patent. | ¶55, ¶56 | col. 2:5-13 |
| A flared head portion containing comb teeth | The accused products feature a similarly flared head containing a comb assembly, creating a comparable visual impression at the device's functional end. | ¶56; p. 15 | col. 2:11-12 |
| A transparent, generally cylindrical mid-section | The accused products incorporate a transparent filter section in the same location and of a similar shape as depicted in the patented design. | ¶56; p. 15 | col. 2:5-6 |
| A tapering, hand-held body portion extending from the mid-section | The accused products have a tapered body shaped for hand-held use that creates a visual profile substantially similar to the patented design's handle portion. | ¶56; p. 15 | col. 2:7-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question will be a visual one: does the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products create a substantially similar impression to the claimed design in the '877 Patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer?
- Technical Questions: A court's analysis may involve comparing the specific contours, proportions, and transitions between the head, filter, and body of the accused products against the patent drawings. The degree of visual similarity in these constituent parts will inform the analysis of the overall appearance. The complaint alleges the accused products are "counterfeit," which suggests a very high degree of similarity is being alleged (Compl. ¶3).
V. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶55) and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Compl. p. 17, ¶2(d)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a standalone theory of either induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on Defendants' alleged direct infringement through making, using, and selling the accused products.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is "willful" (Compl. ¶57). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" used the V-COMB patent in connection with selling "Counterfeit Products" (Compl. ¶45). The nature of the lawsuit against alleged counterfeiters who trade on Plaintiffs' goodwill may be used to support the knowledge and intent required for a willfulness finding.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of visual comparison: in the eyes of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the various accused electric lice combs, as sold by the "Schedule A" defendants, substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the ’877 Patent? The outcome will depend on a direct comparison of the products' appearance to the patent's drawings.
A key procedural question, characteristic of this type of case, will be enforcement: assuming infringement is found, can Plaintiffs effectively identify, serve, and secure compliance with court orders from the numerous, allegedly foreign-based and pseudonymous online sellers that constitute the Defendants?
Finally, assuming liability is established, a critical question will be the remedy: does the alleged "counterfeit" nature of the infringement support a finding of willfulness, which could lead to enhanced damages? Further, will Plaintiffs elect to pursue their total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy specific to design patent infringement, which may be a more straightforward calculation against online sellers than a reasonable royalty?