DCT
3:23-cv-22089
Jool Products LLC v. Angelcare Canada Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jool Products LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Angelcare Canada Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stern & Schurin LLP
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-22089, D.N.J., 11/07/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey as it is where a substantial part of the events occurred, where Plaintiff is located, and where Defendant transacts business and directed patent enforcement activities via Amazon.com.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its baby bather products do not infringe Defendant's patent on a baby bath-support device and that the patent is invalid and/or unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns baby bath-support devices, a consumer product designed to hold an infant securely and ergonomically in a tub or sink during bathing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this dispute follows a prior, similar claim made by Defendant against Plaintiff via Amazon.com's patent enforcement program regarding a corresponding Canadian patent. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant retracted the Canadian patent claim after Plaintiff's counsel provided a detailed non-infringement analysis, yet Defendant subsequently initiated the current action by asserting the U.S. patent against the same product.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-12 | ’422 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-02-09 | ’422 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-06-22 | Angelcare files complaint with Amazon re: Canadian '529 Patent |
| 2023-07-31 | Jool Baby's counsel sends non-infringement letter re: Canadian Patent |
| 2023-08-04 | Angelcare allegedly agrees to retract Canadian patent complaint |
| 2023-09-05 | Jool Baby's counsel sends second letter re: other Canadian Patent claims |
| 2023-09-25 | Angelcare confirms retraction of its Canadian patent complaint with Amazon |
| 2023-10-17 | Amazon notice issued to Jool Baby regarding Angelcare's '422 Patent claim |
| 2023-11-07 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,912,422 - "BABY BATH-SUPPORT DEVICE," issued February 9, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies issues with prior art baby bath-support devices, noting that rigid or fabric-based surfaces can lead to inefficient drainage, causing "spoiled water" to remain near the baby, and that absorbent fabrics require regular washing. (’422 Patent, col. 1:23-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a baby bath support featuring a rigid frame and a separate, flexible, sling-like support panel. This panel is perforated to allow water to flow through and is connected to the frame via a "connection arrangement... for hanging the support panel at the peripheral edge such that the support panel is hung to the frame." (’422 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-54). This design aims to create a more hygienic and ergonomic support that conforms to the baby's body like a hammock. (’422 Patent, col. 3:17-21).
- Technical Importance: The claimed combination of a rigid frame with a perforated, flexible, "hung" panel sought to improve upon existing designs by enhancing water circulation, stability, and infant comfort. (’422 Patent, col. 1:34-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint exclusively addresses independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 56).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A frame having a generally rigid body.
- A support panel made of a flexible material with a concave surface and a plurality of perforations.
- A "connection arrangement between the frame and the support for hanging the support panel at the peripheral edge such that the support panel is hung to the frame to cover at least partially the opening."
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for "claim 1 or any other claim of the '422 patent." (Compl. ¶ 57).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Jool Baby baby bather products sold on Amazon.com under ASINs B0BBSRZFMJ and B0BV54FC9B. (Compl. ¶ 27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are baby bathers sold as competing alternatives to Defendant's products on the Amazon.com platform. (Compl. ¶ 2). The core of Plaintiff's non-infringement argument is that its products do not have the claimed "connection arrangement... for hanging the support panel." (Compl. ¶ 29). Instead, the complaint alleges that the support panel in the Jool Baby product is "fused to the frame" and is not "hung to the frame." (Compl. ¶ 48). A visual in the complaint aims to illustrate this distinction, showing a closeup of the Jool Baby product's edge connection. (Compl. ¶ 31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Plaintiff Jool Baby’s position on why its product does not meet the limitations of claim 1, as alleged in the complaint.
'422 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame having a generally rigid body adapted to be positioned on a surface of a bathing tub or sink... | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 5:11-17 | |
| a support panel made of a flexible material and defining a concave support surface... the support panel having a plurality of perforations... | The complaint does not contest this element. | col. 5:18-23 | |
| a connection arrangement between the frame and the support for hanging the support panel at the peripheral edge such that the support panel is hung to the frame to cover at least partially the opening. | The complaint alleges the accused products "do not have 'a connection arrangement... for hanging the support panel... such that the support panel is hung to the frame.'" The product's panel is alleged to be "fused to the frame," not hung. A provided image contrasts the product's fused edge with a diagram labeled "NOT HOOK STRUCTURE." | ¶29, ¶30, ¶31, ¶48 | col. 5:24-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central dispute raises the question of the proper construction for the phrase "hung to the frame." Does this term require a specific mechanical relationship, such as the "channel and hook arrangement" described as an embodiment in the patent, or can it be read more broadly to cover any method of suspension, including one where the support panel is "fused" or co-molded with the frame? (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 48; ’422 Patent, col. 2:27-29).
- Technical Questions: What evidence will be presented to establish the precise manufacturing method and resulting physical connection between the support panel and the frame in the accused Jool Baby products? The complaint provides a photo of the product's edge connection to argue it is not a "hook structure," but a detailed technical analysis of the "fused" connection is not provided. (Compl. ¶ 31).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "hung to the frame"
- Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the non-infringement dispute. Plaintiff's entire case, as pled, rests on the assertion that its support panel is "fused to the frame" and therefore not "hung to the frame" as required by claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-31, 48). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader definition may point to language describing alternative embodiments. For instance, the patent discloses that "the frame and the support panel are co-molded," and claim 10 (a dependent claim) explicitly claims this co-molded joint. (’422 Patent, col. 2:34-35; col. 6:18-21). This could support an argument that "hung" is a functional term for how the panel is suspended, not a structural one limited to hooks.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower definition may emphasize the patent's consistent use of "hung" and "hanging" in conjunction with the primary described embodiment, which is a "channel and hook arrangement." (’422 Patent, col. 2:27-29). The patent summary states the invention includes "a connection arrangement...for hanging the support panel...such that the support panel is hung to the frame," suggesting a specific, intended meaning tied to the disclosed hook-and-channel structure. (’422 Patent, col. 1:50-54; Fig. 5).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general denial, stating that "Jool Baby does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to infringe, any of the claims of the '422 patent." (Compl. ¶ 59). No specific facts are alleged beyond this denial.
- Willful Infringement: This is not applicable in the traditional sense, as Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment. However, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s assertion of infringement is "frivolous" and that this constitutes an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to attorneys' fees. (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 63). This allegation is based on the procedural history, particularly Defendant's decision to assert the '422 Patent after having allegedly been educated on the same non-infringement theory and retracting a claim on the corresponding Canadian patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 50-52).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "hung to the frame," which is illustrated in the patent's preferred embodiment as a "channel and hook arrangement," be construed to cover a "fused" or "co-molded" connection as found in the accused product? The patent’s own disclosure of co-molding as an alternative embodiment may complicate this analysis.
- A second key question will be one of estoppel or bad faith: does Defendant’s prior conduct—allegedly asserting and then retracting an infringement claim on a nearly identical Canadian patent against the same product, only to then assert the U.S. counterpart patent—render this an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285?
- A final evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: assuming "hung" is construed, what is the precise nature of the accused product's connection? How does its "fused" structure compare functionally to the "co-molded joint" described in the patent's own specification, and does that overlap with the scope of "hung" in independent claim 1?