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 (various, including People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Israel, and Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bishop Diehl & Lee, LTD.
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04213, N.D. Ill., 06/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the district because the defendants do not reside in the United States and therefore may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that shower caps sold by a network of foreign online merchants infringe a U.S. patent for a shower cap design featuring a partial elastic band.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to consumer personal care products, specifically shower caps designed to improve comfort and fit by eliminating the forehead-area elastic common in traditional designs.
• 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.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,398,780, "SHOWER CAP", issued July 26, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes problems with conventional "one-size-fits-all" shower caps that use an elastic closure around the entire rim. This design is said to cause the fabric to bunch up, leave uncomfortable marks on the user's skin, and potentially slide down over the user's eyes. (’780 Patent, col. 1:25-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a shower cap where the elastic member is located "only [in] that part of the cap which goes around the back of the user's head." (’780 Patent, col. 2:60-62). This leaves the frontal portion of the cap's rim, which rests on the forehead, free of elastic. This elastic-free section is described as a potentially wider band that can lie flat against the skin, improving comfort and preventing slippage without causing marks. (’780 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-8). The design is illustrated in figures showing a "tiara-shaped" frontal region without elastic and a gathered rear section with elastic. (’780 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This design addresses common usability and comfort issues with traditional shower caps by reconfiguring the elastic placement to provide a more secure and comfortable fit. (’780 Patent, col. 2:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert all claims. (Compl. ¶32).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
  • A piece of fabric formed into a generally hemispherical shape with a peripheral edge, defining a cavity to receive a user's head.
  • An elastic member positioned "adjacent only part of the peripheral edge" of the fabric.
  • A "remaining section of the peripheral edge is free of the elastic member."
  • A functional limitation wherein, when worn, the elastic member "pulls substantially the entire elastic-free section of the peripheral edge into direct contact with the user's head and substantially prevents water from entering the cavity."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "novel shower cap[s]" offered for sale and sold by the defendants. (Compl. ¶4, ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the defendants operate a network of "Internet Stores" on online marketplaces such as amazon.com, walmart.com, and alibaba.com to sell the accused products to consumers in the United States. (Compl. ¶6-¶7). The complaint alleges that the defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers" who sell "the same infringing products with minor variations," often using common product images. (Compl. ¶9). The complaint references visual evidence in an exhibit, described as "exemplary screenshots of some of Defendants' infringing offerings on these marketplaces," to illustrate the accused products. (Compl. ¶7, Ex. B).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the defendants’ products infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’780 Patent and references an "example claim chart attached as Exhibit C" to support this allegation. (Compl. ¶32). As this exhibit was not available for review, a summary of the narrative infringement theory is provided below.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the shower caps sold by the defendants embody the specific design claimed in the ’780 Patent. (Compl. ¶31-¶33). The complaint asserts that these products are shower caps which, by their construction, meet the limitations of the claims. (Compl. ¶4, ¶32). This theory appears to rely on the allegation that the accused products are structurally identical or highly similar to the patented invention, particularly with respect to the partial elastic band construction. The complaint references screenshots of the accused products as evidence of these infringing features. (Compl. ¶7, Ex. B). This visual evidence, depicting the accused products offered for sale, is intended to show products that practice the claims of the ’780 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Structural Questions: The central issue will be whether the accused products possess the specific claimed structure: an elastic member "adjacent only part of the peripheral edge" and a "remaining section" that is "free of the elastic member." Evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused products are not constructed with a conventional 360-degree elastic band.
• Functional Questions: A potential point of dispute is the functional limitation requiring that the elastic member "pulls substantially the entire elastic-free section ... into direct contact with the user's head." The case may raise evidentiary questions about whether the accused products actually perform this function to "substantially prevent water from entering the cavity" as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "adjacent only part of the peripheral edge"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central structural limitation distinguishing the invention from the prior art, which the patent characterizes as having elastic around the entire periphery. (Compl. ¶32; ’780 Patent, col. 1:18-20). The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on how "only part" is defined and whether the accused products meet that definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests some flexibility, describing the elastic portion as extending for "approximately 180 degrees." (’780 Patent, col. 2:62-63). Parties arguing for a broader scope might contend that "part" means any portion less than the entire 360-degree circumference.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the invention's purpose as creating an elastic-free frontal region to prevent marks and slippage. (’780 Patent, col. 2:64-65). Embodiments show the elastic terminating near the user's temples, leaving the entire forehead section free of elastic. (’780 Patent, col. 4:39-44, Fig. 3). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, continuous frontal section to be completely free of any elastic material.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of indirect infringement and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [and] contributing to" infringement. (Compl. ¶31; Prayer for Relief ¶A.b). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a theory of inducement or contributory infringement, such as detailing how defendants instruct or encourage infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants' infringement was and continues to be "knowing[] and willful[]," entitling the plaintiff to enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶27, ¶36). The allegations are based on the general assertion that defendants knowingly sold products that infringe the patent, without specifying whether this knowledge was acquired pre- or post-suit. (Compl. ¶27, ¶31).

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

1. A central question will be one of structural identity: Can the plaintiff prove that the shower caps sold by a diffuse network of online sellers, as depicted in the complaint's visual exhibits (Compl. ¶7, Ex. B), possess the specific, unconventional construction required by Claim 1—namely, a peripheral edge that is only partially elasticated, leaving a remaining section entirely "free of the elastic member"?
2. The case will also present a collective liability question: Given that the defendants are a large group of allegedly separate entities, a key issue will be whether the plaintiff can establish that they are an "interrelated group" selling the "same infringing products" (Compl. ¶9), thereby allowing them to be treated collectively for purposes of infringement and liability.