DCT
4:24-cv-01140
Contego Spa Designs Inc v. Voncii LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Case Name: Contego Spa Designs, Inc. v. Voncii LLC
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Contego Spa Designs, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Voncii LLC (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lasher Holzapfel Sperry & Ebberson; Vista IP Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-01140, E.D. Mo., 08/21/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a Missouri entity that resides in the Eastern District of Missouri and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use and importation of flexible liners for pedicure spa chairs infringes a patent related to multi-layer liners featuring an integrated air conduit for creating a bubble massage effect.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the salon industry's need for hygienic, single-use liners for pedicure foot spas that can also provide a fluid massage feature, thereby enhancing both sanitation and customer experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff and that a corrective assignment was later recorded. Plaintiff also alleges that it has marked its own products in accordance with patent laws.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-12-08 | ’668 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-03-31 | Inventors assign rights to Plaintiff |
| 2021-06-21 | Initial assignment recorded at USPTO |
| 2021-08-10 | ’668 Patent Issued |
| 2023-05-18 | Corrective assignment recorded at USPTO |
| 2024-08-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,083,668 - "FLEXIBLE LINER WITH INNER AND OUTER LAYERS FOR USE WITH A LIQUID-RECEIVING BASIN,"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In salon settings, pedicure foot spas require a hygienic solution to prevent the transfer of contaminants between clients. While disposable liners solve this isolation problem, they often eliminate features like water jets for foot massage, which are desirable for the customer experience (Compl. ¶15; ’668 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a disposable, multi-layer liner that integrates an air delivery system. It consists of a first, outer plastic body that forms a waterproof receptacle, and a second, inner plastic body joined to the base of the first. The space between these two layers creates a sealed air conduit. A flexible tube connects this conduit to an external air source. When pressurized air is supplied, it travels through the conduit and exits through small openings in the second (inner) body, creating bubbles in the water to provide a massage effect while keeping the liquid isolated from the spa basin itself (Compl. ¶15; ’668 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-42).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for retaining a fluid massage feature within a disposable liner, thereby addressing both hygienic and performance demands in the commercial spa industry (’668 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-10 and 12-19, which include independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶23).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
- A first body of flexible plastic having an inner face and an opposing outer face, with a base and a wall configured to form a receptacle.
- A second body of flexible plastic joined to the inner face of the base of the first body, forming an air conduit along the base.
- The second body having a plurality of openings that provide a fluid pathway from the air conduit to the interior of the receptacle.
- A flexible tube with a first end attached to the second body in fluid communication with the air conduit, and a free end configured to be coupled to a source of pressurized air.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Products" are identified as flexible liners purchased, imported, and used by Defendant Voncii at its "Voncii Nail Bar" (Compl. ¶¶22, 24). The complaint alleges these products are sourced from a "DoShower company located in China" (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are used in salon spa chairs to provide pedicures and other nail services to customers (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges the products function by being inserted into a spa basin, filled with liquid, and connected to an air source to create a massaging bubble effect for the customer's feet, isolating the liquid from the basin (Compl. ¶¶15, 27). The complaint provides annotated photographs, described as Exhibit 2, of an Accused Product turned inside out to show its constituent elements (Compl. ¶25). Additional photographs, described as Exhibit 3, allegedly show the product being used in a pedicure basin at Defendant's salon (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’668 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first body of flexible plastic having an inner face and an opposing outer face, the first body of flexible plastic having a base and a wall extending from the base configured to form a receptacle... | The Accused Products include a first body of flexible plastic with an inner and outer face, a base, and a wall that forms a receptacle to hold liquid and isolate it from the basin. | ¶26 | col. 7:1-17 |
| a second body of flexible plastic joined to the inner face of the base of the first body of flexible plastic, the second body of flexible plastic forming an air conduit along the base... | A second body of flexible plastic is joined to the inner face of the first body's base and forms an air conduit along the base. | ¶26 | col. 7:18-24 |
| the second body of flexible plastic having a plurality of openings therethrough which provide a fluid pathway from the air conduit to the interior volume of the receptacle... | The second body of flexible plastic has multiple openings providing a fluid pathway from the air conduit into the receptacle's interior volume. | ¶26 | col. 8:52-56 |
| and a flexible tube having a first end and a free end, the first end attached to the second body of flexible plastic such that the first end is in fluid communication with the air conduit, and the free end configured to be coupled to a source of pressurized air. | A flexible tube has a first end attached to the second body, allowing fluid communication with the air conduit, and a free end for coupling to a pressurized air source. | ¶26 | col. 10:35-42 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the "flexible tube" is attached to the "second body of flexible plastic." A potential point of dispute may be the precise nature and location of this attachment on the accused device and whether it meets the claim's specific structural requirement.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations in paragraph 26 track the language of Claim 1 almost verbatim. A key question will be what factual evidence, such as that depicted in the referenced photographic Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶25), supports the allegation that the accused product's second layer is specifically "joined to the inner face of the base" of the first layer, as opposed to being joined in another manner (e.g., only at the periphery).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "joined to the inner face of the base"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the critical structural relationship between the two plastic layers that creates the air conduit. The method, location, and extent of this "joining" will be central to the infringement analysis. If the accused product's layers are attached in a different location (e.g., only along the walls) or in a manner that does not constitute being "joined to...the base," it could support a non-infringement defense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "joined," which may not be limited to a specific method of attachment ('668 Patent, col. 13:21-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the joining process as "heat sealing" or "welding" ('668 Patent, col. 8:43-51). An accused infringer may argue that "joined" should be construed more narrowly to mean these specific methods of permanent thermal bonding.
The Term: "flexible tube"
- Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific component for connecting the air conduit to an air source. The analysis will depend on whether the accused product’s air intake mechanism can be characterized as a "flexible tube." Practitioners may focus on this term because a simple sealed opening or a different type of integrated port might not meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term itself is relatively simple. A plaintiff may argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any pliable, hollow structure that conveys air.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the "flexible tube" is an "extension of each of the first and second bodies of plastic that is sealed together" ('668 Patent, col. 10:48-51). A defendant could argue this language narrows the term to an integrally formed extension rather than a separately attached component.
VI. Other Allegations
Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement through "use" and "importation" (Compl. ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Upon information and belief, the acts of infringement... have been willful, because such infringement has been and is deliberate and intentional" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent, such as prior correspondence or litigation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the physical construction of the accused liners, as will be shown through discovery and the photographs referenced in the complaint, map directly onto the specific structural limitations of the asserted claims? The case may turn on factual evidence demonstrating how and where the two plastic layers are "joined" and the precise nature of the "flexible tube" element.
- A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Will the term "joined to," which is central to the formation of the claimed air conduit, be interpreted broadly, or will it be limited to the "heat sealing" and "welding" embodiments that are emphasized in the patent's detailed description? The court's construction of this term will likely be dispositive for the infringement analysis.