Tiara Bliss Inc v. T Schedule A

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tiara Bliss Inc. (Ontario, Canada)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on the Attached Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01954, N.D. Ill., 03/28/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants do not reside in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ online sales of certain shower caps infringe a patent related to a shower cap design with a partially elasticized rim.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns shower caps designed for improved comfort and fit by using a non-elastic front band to prevent skin marks and slippage, a common issue with fully elasticized caps.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The case is brought against a group of unidentified defendants, listed in a "Schedule A," who are alleged to be foreign online merchants.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-08-25	’780 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2016-07-26	’780 Patent Issue Date
2023-03-28	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,398,780 - "Shower Cap"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional shower caps as having an elastic closure around the entire rim, which causes the fabric to bunch up. This bunching is described as uncomfortable, prone to leaving marks on the user's forehead and temples, and can create gaps that allow water to enter (U.S. Patent No. 9,398,780, col. 1:25-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a shower cap where the elastic member is located only in the portion that goes around the back of the user's head, leaving the front section free of elastic (’780 Patent, col. 2:58-65). This design allows the frontal band to lie flat against the forehead, which is intended to be more comfortable, prevent marks, and create a better seal against water (’780 Patent, Abstract). The patent also discloses that this frontal band can be wider than the rest of the rim, creating a "tiara-shaped" appearance that helps the user orient the cap correctly (’780 Patent, col. 5:40-49; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to solve long-standing comfort and performance issues in a ubiquitous consumer product by rethinking the placement and extent of the elastic closure system (’780 Patent, col. 1:51-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’780 Patent (Compl. ¶32).
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A piece of fabric formed to have a generally hemispherical shape with a peripheral edge, defining a cavity to receive a user's head.
  • An elastic member positioned adjacent to only part of the peripheral edge.
  • A remaining section of the peripheral edge is free of the elastic member.
  • When worn, the elastic member pulls the elastic-free section into direct contact with the user's head to substantially prevent water from entering the cavity.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert that Defendants have infringed "each and every claim of the '780 Patent" (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "shower cap" products ("Infringing Products") offered for sale and sold by the Defendants through online marketplaces including amazon.com, Walmart.com, alibaba.com, etsy.com, and ebay.com (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges Defendants sell "the same infringing products with minor variations" through various online storefronts, often using fictitious names (Compl. ¶9, ¶22).
• The complaint references "Exemplary screenshots of some of Defendants' infringing offerings" in an attached Exhibit B to illustrate the accused products (Compl. ¶7). An image depicting an infringing product on an e-commerce platform is referenced to show Defendants' offerings (Compl. ¶7, citing Ex. B). However, the complaint does not provide specific technical details about the construction of the accused shower caps beyond the conclusory allegation that they infringe the ’780 Patent.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "example claim chart attached as Exhibit C" to show that the accused products infringe at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶32). As this exhibit was not publicly filed with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the plaintiff's specific allegations is not possible. The complaint's narrative infringement theory is that the shower caps sold by the Defendants possess all the structural and functional elements of Claim 1 of the ’780 Patent.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: The central factual dispute will be whether the accused products, which are sold by a large and diverse group of online sellers, actually possess the specific structure recited in the claims. A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products contain an elastic member on "only part of the peripheral edge" while the "remaining section... is free of the elastic member."
  • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products meet the functional limitation that "the elastic member pulls substantially the entire elastic-free section... into direct contact with the user's head"? The complaint does not contain allegations detailing tests or inspections of the accused products that would support this functional claim element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "positioned adjacent only part of the peripheral edge"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central feature distinguishing the invention from prior art shower caps with fully elasticized rims. The definition of "only part" will be critical to determining the scope of the claim and whether a product with elastic covering, for example, 200 degrees of a 360-degree rim, would infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 8 specifies that the elastic member "extends for around 180° of the rim of the cap" (’780 Patent, col. 8:39-40). Defendants may argue this language limits the scope of "only part" in the independent claim to a similar range.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of "only part" does not contain an explicit numerical limit, suggesting any portion less than the whole could suffice. Plaintiff may argue the 180° language in a dependent claim is merely a preferred embodiment and does not limit the broader independent claim.

• The Term: "pulls substantially the entire elastic-free section... into direct contact with the user's head"

• Context and Importance: This functional language is crucial for infringement. A defendant could potentially have the claimed physical structure (a partially elasticized rim) but argue its product does not function in the claimed manner. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving this pulling action and the resulting "direct contact" across the "entire" elastic-free section may require specific evidence beyond simple product inspection.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that the design's purpose is to prevent the fabric from bunching and leaving marks on the forehead (’780 Patent, col. 1:36-40). This purpose could suggest that "direct contact" requires a smooth, flat, and continuous seal, not just incidental touching.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "substantially" provides inherent flexibility, suggesting that perfect or complete contact across the entire section is not required for infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert" to infringe (Compl. ¶31) and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringement (Compl. ¶ Prayer for Relief, B). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts, such as providing instructions to users, that would traditionally support a claim for induced infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement was and is "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶27, ¶31, ¶36). The basis for this allegation appears to be the act of selling the infringing products itself, as the complaint does not allege that Defendants had pre-suit notice of the ’780 Patent.

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

1. A Core Evidentiary Question: What proof will be required to establish that the accused shower caps, sourced from a large, unidentified group of foreign online sellers, uniformly practice the specific structural and functional limitations of the asserted claims, particularly the partial elastic band and the "direct contact" function of the elastic-free section?

2. A Central Claim Construction Question: How will the court construe the scope of "only part of the peripheral edge"? The resolution of whether this term is limited to approximately 180 degrees, as suggested by a dependent claim, or encompasses any configuration less than the full perimeter will be a critical determinant of liability.

3. A Question of Functionality: Does the accused product's design, even if structurally similar, actually perform the claimed function of pulling the entire elastic-free section into "direct contact" to "substantially" prevent water entry, and what level of proof will be needed to demonstrate this functional aspect of the claim?