DCT
3:18-cv-16388
Batinkoff v. Church & Dwight Co Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Randall Batinkoff (California)
- Defendant: Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Delaware); Mark H. Kress (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pergament & Cepeda LLP
- Case Identification: Batinkoff v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 3:18-cv-16388, D.N.J., 11/21/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey based on Defendant Church & Dwight Co., Inc. having a place of business in the district and both defendants allegedly conducting business and committing acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “Toppik” brand hair fiber applicators infringe a patent related to pump dispensers for cosmetic powders.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to mechanical, hand-operated pump dispensers designed for the targeted application of particulate materials, such as cosmetic fibers used to conceal thinning hair.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on November 21, 2018. Subsequent to this filing, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding was initiated against the patent-in-suit (IPR2020-00168). On August 18, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate cancelling all claims (1-11) of the patent. This post-filing development raises fundamental questions about the viability of the infringement claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-16 | U.S. Patent No. 7,841,494 Priority Date |
| 2010-11-30 | U.S. Patent No. 7,841,494 Issued |
| 2018-11-21 | Complaint Filed |
| 2019-11-20 | Inter Partes Review IPR2020-00168 Filed Against the '494 Patent |
| 2022-08-18 | IPR Certificate Issued, Cancelling All Claims of the '494 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,841,494, “Pump Dispenser,” issued November 30, 2010.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art powder dispensers as often having complicated and expensive designs that require two hands to operate, and an inability to produce a uniform, well-defined stream of dispensed powder (’494 Patent, col. 1:33-36, col. 2:41-45).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a pump cap designed to be coupled to a receptacle containing a powder or fiber. The cap features an elastomeric, deformable dome that, when pressed by a user's finger, forces a blast of air through a tube into the receptacle (’494 Patent, col. 3:53-58). This air blast agitates the powder and ejects it through an outlet. An air intake system with a one-way valve allows the dome to reinflate when released, preparing the device for subsequent use with a single hand (’494 Patent, col. 3:48-52).
- Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a simple, inexpensive, and easy-to-manufacture pump cap that allows for improved, single-handed dispersion of cosmetic media with accurate direction (’494 Patent, col. 2:51-62).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17). The prayer for relief references infringement of "at least one claims" of the patent (Compl. p. 7, ¶B).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A pump cap for dispensing cosmetic media from a receptacle.
- A closure with a top wall and a downward depending peripheral wall that receives the open end of the receptacle.
- A deformable dome secured to the closure, forming an air-tight chamber.
- An air pump tube to provide airflow from the dome chamber into the receptacle when the dome is compressed.
- An air intake tube with a specific structure: a first air intake chamber parallel to the closure's top wall and a second air intake chamber perpendicular to the first.
- An outlet chamber for dispensing the media, which communicates with an opening on the peripheral wall of the closure.
- The configuration must be such that the dispenser can be held and operated in one hand by successively compressing and releasing the dome.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are “hair fiber applicator[s]” sold by Defendants under the “Toppik” brand (Compl. ¶17).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges the Toppik applicators are pump caps used to dispense cosmetic hair fibers from a receptacle (Compl. ¶18). The device is alleged to be operable with one hand by "successively compressing and releasing said deforming dome" (Compl. ¶31).
- The products are allegedly sold on the "Topikk" website, operated by Defendant Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's damages will exceed $25,000,000, suggesting the product has significant commercial presence (Compl. ¶36).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'494 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pump cap for dispensing a cosmetic media from a receptacle... | The Toppik product is alleged to be a "pump cap for dispensing a cosmetic media from a receptacle." | ¶18 | col. 2:50-51 |
| a closure including a top wall which terminates in a downward depending peripheral wall... | The accused applicator allegedly includes a "closure including a top wall which terminates in a downward depending peripheral wall." | ¶19 | col. 5:16-18 |
| a deformable dome secured to said top wall of the closure to provide an air-tight dome chamber... | The accused applicator allegedly includes a "deformable dome secured to said top wall of the closure to provide an air-tight dome chamber." | ¶21 | col. 5:23-26 |
| an air pump tube for providing airflow from said dome chamber to the open top end of the receptacle when said deformable dome is compressed... | The accused applicator allegedly includes an "air pump tube for providing airflow from said dome chamber to the open top end of the receptacle when said deformable dome is compressed." | ¶22 | col. 5:27-31 |
| an air intake tube comprising a first air intake chamber running in a direction substantially parallel to the top wall of the closure... and a second air intake chamber... disposed perpendicularly to said first air inlet chamber... | The accused applicator is alleged to have an air intake tube with a "first air intake chamber running in a direction substantially parallel to the top wall of the closure" and a "second air intake chamber... disposed perpendicularly to said first air inlet chamber." | ¶24, ¶25 | col. 5:32-41 |
| an outlet chamber for dispensing cosmetic media from the receptacle... | The accused applicator allegedly includes an "outlet chamber for dispensing cosmetic media from the receptacle." | ¶28 | col. 5:42-43 |
| such that the dispenser can be held in one hand and cosmetic media may be dispensed by successively compressing and releasing said deforming dome. | The accused applicator is allegedly designed "such that the dispenser can be held in one hand and cosmetic media may be dispensed by successively compressing and releasing said deforming dome." | ¶31 | col. 5:48-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the internal structure of the Toppik applicator contains the specific geometry required by claim 1, particularly the two-part, perpendicular arrangement of the "first air intake chamber" and "second air intake chamber." The complaint's allegations track the claim language, but proof will depend on the product's actual construction.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise questions about the proper construction of terms like "chamber." For instance, does the accused product's "outlet chamber" constitute a distinct volumetric space as the term might imply, or is it merely a channel or orifice, and does the claim scope cover the latter?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "an air intake tube comprising a first air intake chamber running in a direction substantially parallel to the top wall of the closure... and a second air intake chamber... being disposed perpendicularly to said first air inlet chamber"
Context and Importance: This highly specific geometric limitation appears to be a key distinguishing feature of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis for claim 1 will hinge on whether the accused product's air intake path can be characterized as having these two distinct, perpendicularly arranged components.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this detailed structure is merely a preferred embodiment, pointing to more general language in the specification that describes the air intake system simply as "at least one air intake tube [valve vent] for in taking air from the atmosphere" (’494 Patent, col. 2:24-25).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit inclusion of this two-part, perpendicular geometry in the independent claim itself, and not just in the description, suggests it is a required limitation, not an optional feature. Parties arguing for a narrow scope would contend that this specific language was added to define the invention and distinguish it from the prior art.
The Term: "outlet chamber"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could be outcome-determinative. If "chamber" is construed to require a distinct, defined volume, a product with a simple nozzle or hole might not infringe. If it is construed more broadly to mean any passage or conduit, infringement may be easier to establish.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also refers to this component more generally as a "dispensing member [product outlet] having an exit orifice through which product can flow outward," which may support an interpretation that a simple passage suffices (’494 Patent, col. 2:36-37).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The choice of the word "chamber" in the claim itself, as opposed to "orifice" or "passage," suggests an intent to claim a structure with more volume than a simple hole. The claim further describes the chamber as "communicating between a media outlet opening... and a receptacle chamber media opening," which may imply a discrete structure connecting two points rather than just an exit point (’494 Patent, col. 5:44-48).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that both Defendants had "full knowledge" of the ’494 Patent "prior to their commencement of design, production, marketing, sales, leasing, distribution and/or use" of the accused applicators (Compl. ¶32, ¶55). The complaint further alleges that the infringement has been "willful, wanton and exceptional" and seeks enhanced damages and attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶35, ¶58, p. 7).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The analysis of this dispute is fundamentally shaped by a critical post-filing event. The key questions are:
A dispositive procedural question is one of mootness: given that all claims of the sole patent-in-suit were cancelled in an Inter Partes Review proceeding that concluded after the complaint was filed, what legal basis, if any, remains for the plaintiff's claims for past damages or injunctive relief?
Setting aside the IPR, a central issue would have been one of structural correspondence: does the accused Toppik applicator's internal air intake system possess the specific two-part, perpendicularly-oriented "chamber" structure recited in claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claim's geometric requirements and the product's actual design?
A core claim construction question would have been one of definitional scope: can terms like "outlet chamber" and "air intake chamber" be construed to read on simple passages and holes, or do they require discrete, voluminous structures that may not be present in the accused device?