McGinley v. Luv N Care Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Michael L. McGinley (Kansas) and S.C. Products, Inc. (Missouri)
  • Defendant: Luv N' Care, Ltd. (Louisiana)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C.
• Case Identification: 4:16-cv-00283, W.D. Mo., 03/30/2016
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged continuous and systematic contacts with Missouri, including transacting business and committing acts of infringement within the state through the sale of accused products via retailers.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail" infringes a patent related to a pitcher with a flexible panel designed to conform to a surface to guide fluid flow.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns children's bath products, specifically rinse cups designed to prevent water and soap from flowing into a child's eyes during hair washing.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Michael L. McGinley is the owner of the patent-in-suit, and Plaintiff S.C. Products, Inc. is the exclusive licensee. The complaint states that Plaintiffs sent a formal notice of infringement to the Defendant on April 1, 2014, nearly two years prior to filing the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-02-04	U.S. Patent No. 8,636,178 Priority Date
2004-02-01	Inventor Brian Lau assigns rights to McGinley
2014-01-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,636,178 Issued
2014-04-01	Plaintiffs send notice of infringement letter
2016-03-30	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,636,178 - Flexible panel pitcher

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,636,178, "Flexible panel pitcher," issued January 28, 2014 (’178 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty of rinsing shampoo from a child's hair without getting soap and water in their eyes ('178 Patent, col. 2:5-20). Conventional pitchers with spouts provide a narrow stream, while wide-rimmed buckets offer poor control, leading to "backflow" of water under the rim and down the child's face ('178 Patent, col. 1:21-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a container featuring a flexible panel and/or rim that can be pressed against an object, such as a child's forehead, to conform to its shape ('178 Patent, Abstract). This conformity is intended to create a seal that directs a broad flow of water over a target area (e.g., hair) while preventing it from leaking or back-flowing onto undesirable areas (e.g., the face and eyes) ('178 Patent, col. 2:56-63; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a more controlled and comfortable method for rinsing, addressing a common frustration for parents and children during bath time ('178 Patent, col. 2:21-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’178 Patent are asserted, reserving the right to identify them later. The patent contains two independent claims, 1 and 6.

• Independent Claim 1:

  • A generally continuous sidewall with a flexible portion defining a "generally flat sidewall section" and a non-flexible portion.
  • A bottom closing the sidewall.
  • A "generally flat inwardly flexible panel" forming part of the flat sidewall section, which is "sufficiently pliable to matingly mold to the head of a person."
  • The flexible panel has a "generally smooth inward surface for unobstructed fluid flow."
  • A handle on the non-flexible portion.

• Independent Claim 6:

  • A "generally rigid continuous sidewall" with a flexible portion defining a "generally flat sidewall section" and a non-flexible portion.
  • A bottom attached to the sidewall.
  • A rim connected to the upper sidewall, where a portion of the rim is "sufficiently inwardly flexible to conform to the shape of an object."
  • An "inwardly flexible and pliable panel" forming part of the flat sidewall section.
  • A handle on the non-flexible portion.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail" marketed and sold by Defendant Luv n' care (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused product as a "flexible panel rinse cup that embodies the inventions in the '178 Patent" (Compl. ¶15). It does not provide further technical details on the product's construction or operation. The complaint alleges the product is sold through major national retailers, including Kmart, Walmart, Toys"R"Us, and Amazon.com (Compl. ¶4).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or an element-by-element analysis of infringement. It makes a general allegation that Defendant "has infringed and continues to infringe the '178 Patent, literally or pursuant to the doctrine of equivalents" by selling the "Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail" (Compl. ¶15). Without a detailed infringement theory, a direct comparison is not possible based on the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be the required degree of flexibility. The analysis will question whether the accused product's material is "sufficiently pliable to matingly mold to the head of a person" (Claim 1) or if the rim is "sufficiently inwardly flexible to conform to the shape of an object" (Claim 6), and what objective standard defines "sufficiently."
• Technical Questions: The court may need to determine if the accused product possesses the specific structures recited in the claims, such as a "generally flat sidewall section" distinct from the rest of the container body. For Claim 6, a question arises as to whether the product has both a flexible rim portion and a flexible panel, and how those two elements are structurally and functionally distinct.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"matingly mold to the head of a person" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This functional language is at the core of the invention's purported sealing capability. The case's outcome may depend on whether this requires a near-perfect, gap-free seal or merely a general conformation that reduces backflow.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's stated goal is to "prevent misapplication of the fluid by preventing fluid from flowing underneath the rim" ('178 Patent, col. 2:54-56). This functional description could support an interpretation where any degree of molding that achieves this preventative function meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states the feature allows the container to "registerably mate with the head of the child" ('178 Patent, col. 5:10-11) and shows a pronounced inward depression in Figure 3. This could support an argument that "matingly mold" requires a specific, significant deformation that closely tracks the contour of the forehead.

"generally flat sidewall section" (Claims 1 and 6)

• Context and Importance: This term structurally defines the area of the pitcher where the flexible panel is located. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers only pitchers with distinctly planar sections or can read on containers with more continuous curves.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with a fully "cylindrical container" ('178 Patent, col. 4:35), suggesting "generally flat" is meant to distinguish from a purely round shape and could encompass surfaces with some degree of curvature.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language specifies a "section" that is "generally flat," which could imply a discrete, planar area on the pitcher's body, as depicted in Figure 2. An accused product with a continuous, unbroken curve might not be considered to have such a "section."

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is "knowing, deliberate and willful" (Compl. ¶19). This allegation is supported by the claim that Plaintiffs provided Defendant with "actual notice and knowledge of the '178 Patent" via a formal letter dated April 1, 2014, and that Defendant continued its allegedly infringing conduct despite this notice (Compl. ¶16, ¶18-19).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and functional scope: What precise degree of flexibility and what quality of seal are required for a device to "matingly mold to the head of a person" as claimed in the patent? The resolution of this question will establish the boundary between a simple flexible container and one that infringes the ’178 Patent.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused "Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail" actually contain the specific structures required by the asserted claims, such as a "generally flat sidewall section" that is distinct from other parts of the container, or will the parties dispute whether its geometry meets that limitation?