DCT
3:23-cv-00533
Contego Spa Designs Inc v. Christy Le JL Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Contego Spa Designs, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Christy Le JL Corporation, dba US Nails (North Carolina), and Christy Le, an Individual (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fox Rothschild LLP; Vista IP Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00533, W.D.N.C., 08/23/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to the corporate defendant because it resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business, and has committed acts of infringement there. Venue is alleged to be proper as to the individual defendant because she resides in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ use of certain pedicure spa chairs in their nail salon infringes a patent related to pedicure basins with integrated overflow protection.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for sanitary, overflow-proof pedicure basins in a commercial salon environment, particularly when disposable liners are used that block conventional drains.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned by the inventor, Lan Van Ta, to Plaintiff Contego Spa Designs, Inc. on November 21, 2019, establishing Plaintiff's standing to bring this infringement action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-12 | '353 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-03-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,289,353 Issued |
| 2019-11-21 | '353 Patent Assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2023-08-23 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,289,353, "PEDICURE BASIN WITH OVERFLOW PROTECTION," issued March 22, 2016
The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a sanitation issue in the pedicure industry where disposable plastic liners are placed in pedicure basins to prevent the spread of germs. A known problem is that these liners block the basin's drain, creating a risk of water overflow if more water is added, and making it difficult to adjust water temperature by partially draining and refilling. (’353 Patent, col. 1:36-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a spa chair with a dual-basin system. A main basin for the client's feet is designed with a "lowered height" portion along its peripheral rim. When water is added and the level rises, it intentionally spills over this lowered rim into a secondary basin that is positioned to collect the overflow. This system allows for overflow management even when a sanitary liner is installed, because the liner conforms to the shape of the main basin, including the lowered rim. (’353 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-34; Fig. 2A).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a method for managing water overflow that is compatible with the widespread and necessary practice of using disposable liners for hygiene in pedicure services. (’353 Patent, col. 4:30-34).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 6. (Compl. ¶25).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A seat for a patient.
- A main basin in front of the seat to receive the patient's feet.
- The main basin having a peripheral rim for containing liquid.
- At least a portion of the peripheral rim is arranged at a "lowered height" relative to a "prescribed height" to allow liquid to overflow.
- A "liner" covering the surface of the main basin up to the rim.
- A secondary basin positioned to collect the overflow from the main basin's lowered rim.
- A "whereby" clause stating that this configuration allows for overflow while the liner prevents the liquid from contacting the main basin.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The Accused Products are pedicure spas identified by the model name "KYEN" and brand name "T-Spa," which were allegedly purchased from T-Spa MFG., LLC or T-Spa Depot LLC. (Compl. ¶26).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants use the KYEN Accused Products at their "US Nails Salon" to provide pedicure services to customers. (Compl. ¶¶35, 51). The functionality relevant to the infringement allegations includes a main basin for pedicures, a secondary basin, the use of disposable liners, and a "Magnet Liner Jet" for creating a whirlpool effect. (Compl. ¶¶29-33). A photograph provided in the complaint shows a KYEN Accused Product installed at the US Nails Salon. (Compl. ¶36, Exhibit 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'353 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a seat arranged for receiving the patient in seating position thereon with the feet presented forwardly of the seat; | The KYEN Accused Product is a spa chair with a seat for a person receiving a pedicure. | ¶26 | col. 2:56-58 |
| a main basin in front of the seat and arranged such that the feet of the patient sitting on the seat are received into the main basin; | The KYEN Accused Product includes a main basin for receiving a customer's feet. A close-up view of this basin is provided as evidence. (Compl. ¶28, Exhibit 3). | ¶29 | col. 3:9-10 |
| the main basin having a peripheral rim for containing liquid in the main basin; | The main basin has a peripheral rim. This is shown in product imagery. (Compl. ¶27, Exhibit 2). | ¶29 | col. 3:20-21 |
| the main basin having at least a portion of the peripheral rim arranged at a lowered height relative to a prescribed height of the peripheral rim so that the liquid can overflow... | The main basin has a portion of its rim at a lowered height, which allows liquid to overflow. This is alleged to be shown in product imagery and a video still. (Compl. ¶29, Exhibits 2, 3). | ¶29 | col. 3:20-23 |
| a liner covering a surface of the main basin up to the peripheral rim in an installed configuration; | The KYEN Accused Products are allegedly used with disposable liners that cover the main basin surface. A photograph shows an accused product being used with a blue plastic liner inserted. (Compl. ¶36, Exhibit 8). | ¶¶31, 35, 36 | col. 3:36-42 |
| and a secondary basin communicated with the main basin over said at least a portion of the peripheral rim so as to collect all overflow of liquid from the main basin... | The complaint alleges there is a secondary basin located behind the main basin to collect overflow. A photograph of this secondary basin is provided. (Compl. ¶30, Exhibit 4). | ¶30 | col. 3:11-14 |
| whereby...provides transfer of liquid out of the main basin by overflow while the liner prevents contact of the liquid with the main basin... | The complaint alleges the product is used with a liner, which by its nature would prevent contact between the water and the basin surface. (Compl. ¶31). | ¶¶31, 36 | col. 5:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim requires a portion of the rim to be at a "lowered height" relative to a "prescribed height." The complaint does not specify what it considers the "prescribed height" of the accused product's rim to be. A potential point of dispute may be whether the accused product's rim geometry meets this limitation, which will depend on how the "prescribed height" is defined during claim construction.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the KYEN product has a secondary basin for collecting overflow. A key factual question will be whether this secondary basin is "communicated with the main basin over said at least a portion of the peripheral rim" and is configured to "collect all overflow" as required by the claim. Evidence will be needed to demonstrate the fluidic connection and collection capability between the two basins.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "liner"
- Context and Importance: The entire purpose of the invention is to solve a problem created by the use of liners. Dependent claims 3 and 4 further specify a "flexible plastic liner" and a "hard shell liner," respectively, indicating the patent contemplates different types. The specific characteristics of the liners used by the Defendant could become relevant to the infringement analysis of both the independent and dependent claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself simply recites "a liner," which on its face is broad and not limited to a specific material or type. (’353 Patent, col. 4:58).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes liners as "typically either a plastic bag type (like a trash bag) or a harder plastic that has been molded to fit like a shell." (’353 Patent, col. 1:37-40). A defendant could argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed examples.
The Term: "prescribed height"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis, as the core inventive concept of a "lowered height" portion of the rim is measured against this "prescribed height." Whether the accused product infringes will depend on establishing this baseline height.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "prescribed height," which may suggest it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, such as the intended or regular height of the main portion of the rim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to a "flow area" calculated from an "imaginary normal rim line." (’353 Patent, col. 3:23-25). This could be used to argue that "prescribed height" is not just any height, but must be determined by this specific "imaginary normal rim line."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on the allegation that Defendants instruct their employees to use the KYEN Accused Products with disposable liners, an act that allegedly constitutes direct infringement. (Compl. ¶¶40, 57). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the pedicure spas without liners are especially made or adapted for use with liners to infringe the patent, and that the combination constitutes infringement. (Compl. ¶¶45-47, 63-65).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation that the infringement has been "deliberate and intentional," forming the basis for a claim of willfulness. (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether the accused "KYEN" spa chair's basin can be shown to have a rim portion at a "lowered height." This will depend entirely on claim construction, specifically how the court defines the baseline "prescribed height" from which that "lowered height" must be measured.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: The complaint alleges a structure that matches the patent claims, but the case will require factual proof that the accused product operates as claimed. Specifically, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the secondary basin is positioned and configured to "collect all overflow" from the main basin via the lowered rim, and that the liner, as used, functions to "prevent contact" between the liquid and the main basin, as mandated by the claim's "whereby" clause.