DCT
1:20-cv-07002
Wahl Clipper Corp v. 3versince
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Case Name: Wahl Clipper Corporation v. 3versince and Enrique Tapia
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wahl Clipper Corporation (Illinois)
- Defendant: 3versince and Enrique Tapia (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-07002, N.D. Ill., 11/25/2020
- Venue Allegations: The complaint asserts that venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) but does not provide specific factual allegations supporting this assertion, such as a regular and established place of business for the defendants within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s replacement hair clipper blades infringe a patent related to a specific blade-tooth geometry designed to improve cutting performance.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical design of bladesets for electric hair clippers, focusing on tooth arrangements that prevent stalling or uneven cutting when the clipper is moved rapidly through hair.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with actual notice of the patent and demanded that the allegedly infringing conduct cease, which Defendants "willfully ignored." This forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-11-15 | ’091 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-11-30 | ’091 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-11-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,841,091 - "Bladeset for a Hair Cutting Apparatus"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,841,091, "Bladeset for a Hair Cutting Apparatus," issued November 30, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional hair clippers wherein moving them too rapidly through hair can cause the bladeset to become "overloaded with hair," which in turn can cause the blades to "stall, separate or fail to properly cut the hair" (’091 Patent, col. 1:40-44). Prior art staggered-tooth designs addressed load distribution but could result in an undesirable "two-tiered or feathered cut" (’091 Patent, col. 1:51-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a bladeset featuring a moving blade with alternating long and short teeth, and significantly more teeth than the stationary blade (’091 Patent, col. 2:60-62). This arrangement creates two distinct but overlapping cutting zones (as shown in Fig. 3). The design allows hair that is missed by the short teeth in the first zone to be captured and cut by the long teeth in the second, overlapping zone, which is intended to produce a "uniform length cut" even at high speeds (’091 Patent, col. 4:30-38).
- Technical Importance: The claimed design sought to provide "enhanced cutting performance at increased feed rates" by simultaneously distributing the cutting load and ensuring a uniform cut, thereby addressing the key performance limitations of prior clippers (’091 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶1).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A stationary blade and a reciprocating moving blade.
- The moving blade has a plurality of long teeth alternately arranged with a plurality of short teeth.
- Both the long and short teeth are configured to cut across the entire width of the moving blade at "relatively high hair feed rates."
- A "first cutting zone" is formed where the short teeth overlap the stationary blade cavities.
- A "second cutting zone" is formed where the long teeth overlap the stationary blade cavities.
- The two cutting zones overlap each other such that the "first cutting zone is within said second cutting zone."
- This structure allows the short and long teeth to "cut hair in the same area of the bladeset at said high hair feed rates."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "SPX Fade Blade and SPX Ceramic Replacement," sold through the website 3versince.com (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are described as replacement blades for hair clippers (Compl. ¶1, ¶11). The complaint alleges that the blades incorporate the key structural features of the patented invention, specifically that "the cutting zones of the shorter and longer teeth of the Infringing Product will overlap during movement of the moving blade" and that "the first (shorter teeth) cutting zone is within the second (longer teeth) cutting zone" (Compl. ¶12). An image provided in the complaint as Exhibit 3 is described as a true and correct image of the infringing product, showing its specific blade geometry (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific market share or commercial importance beyond its sale in the United States.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’091 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one stationary blade... and at least one moving blade... configured for laterally reciprocating... | The accused instrumentality is a replacement bladeset for a hair clipper, consisting of moving and stationary blades. | ¶1, ¶11 | col. 2:44-54 |
| said moving blade teeth including a plurality of long teeth alternately arranged with a plurality of short teeth... | The Infringing Product is alleged to have shorter and longer teeth. Images of the product are referenced in Exhibit 3. | ¶12, ¶11 | col. 3:10-13 |
| said plurality of long teeth and said plurality of short teeth each being configured to cut across at least an entire width of said moving blade at relatively high hair feed rates... | The complaint makes a general allegation that the Infringing Product infringes Claim 1, which contains this limitation. | ¶1, ¶11 | col. 3:17-21 |
| a horizontally oriented first cutting zone is formed in an area where said short teeth... overlap, and a second horizontally oriented cutting zone is formed in an area where said long teeth... overlap... | The complaint alleges the existence of a "first (shorter teeth) cutting zone" and a "second (longer teeth) cutting zone." | ¶12 | col. 4:10-19 |
| said cutting zones overlapping each other, so that said first cutting zone is within said second cutting zone... | The complaint specifically alleges that "the first (shorter teeth) cutting zone is within the second (longer teeth) cutting zone." | ¶12 | col. 4:20-22 |
| such that said short teeth and said long teeth cut hair in the same area of the bladeset at said high hair feed rates. | The complaint alleges infringement of all limitations of Claim 1, which requires this functional outcome. | ¶11, ¶12 | col. 4:22-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Structural Questions: The infringement case appears to rest heavily on a direct structural comparison. A central question will be whether the accused products, as depicted in Exhibit 3 and examined in discovery, physically embody the specific nested geometry where one cutting zone is "within" the other, as required by the claim (Compl. ¶11, ¶12).
- Functional Questions: The claim requires that both sets of teeth are "configured to cut" at "relatively high hair feed rates." An issue may arise as to whether the accused product's short teeth are, in fact, structured to perform this cutting function at high speeds, or if they serve a different or secondary purpose. The evidence will need to establish not just the structure but also this claimed functionality.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "relatively high hair feed rates"
Context and Importance: This term is a condition precedent for the functionality of a key claim element—that both the long and short teeth are configured to cut across the blade width. The scope of "high" vs. "normal" feed rates could be determinative of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is relational and not explicitly defined with a numerical value.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification contrasts these "high" rates with the "slow rate" of normal operation and frames the problem in terms of what happens when a user "rapidly moves the clipper through the hair" (’091 Patent, col. 1:35-39). This could support a non-numerical, functional definition based on speeds that would cause prior art clippers to overload.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent quantifies the performance of an embodiment of the invention as achieving "over 45 cutting actions per stroke," in contrast to "30-33 cutting actions per stroke" for conventional clippers (’091 Patent, col. 3:41-45). A party could argue this provides a basis for a more quantitative, and thus narrower, definition of the term.
The Term: "said first cutting zone is within said second cutting zone"
Context and Importance: This term defines the specific spatial and functional relationship between the two cutting zones, a key feature alleged to produce a "uniform length cut" instead of a "feathered" one (’091 Patent, col. 4:30-38). The complaint's core technical allegation mirrors this language exactly (Compl. ¶12).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly Figure 3, visually depict the cutting zone associated with the short teeth ('Z') as being spatially encompassed by the cutting zone associated with the long teeth ('P') (’091 Patent, Fig. 3). This may support an interpretation based on the general geometric arrangement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this structure to a specific function: "enabling hair that is not cut within the first cutting zone to be cut within the second cutting zone" (’091 Patent, col. 4:21-24). A party could argue that infringement requires not just a visual overlap but proof that the accused device relies on this specific sequential cutting mechanism to achieve a uniform cut.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Wahl provided Defendants with "actual notice... of its rights in the '091 Patent" and demanded they cease infringement (Compl. ¶13). The complaint further alleges that Defendants, with "knowledge of Wahl's rights and their own infringing conduct, willfully ignored Wahl's demand," which forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural and evidentiary proof: does the accused "SPX Fade Blade" product, upon technical inspection, actually embody the precise, nested blade geometry where the cutting zone of the short teeth is located "within" the cutting zone of the long teeth, as explicitly required by Claim 1 and alleged in the complaint?
- A key question of claim scope will be: what is the meaning of "relatively high hair feed rates"? The case may turn on whether this is a subjective, functional standard or a quantifiable speed threshold, and whether the accused product's blades are proven to operate in the claimed manner under those conditions.