DCT
1:24-cv-00803
Contego Spa Designs Inc v. Goldust Nail Lounge LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Contego Spa Designs, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Goldust Nail Lounge LLC (New Mexico)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Peacock Law P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00803, D.N.M., 08/12/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's use of disposable liners in its pedicure spa chairs infringes a patent related to multi-layer liners featuring an integrated air conduit for creating a bubbling massage effect.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns disposable liners for pedicure foot spas, a product category significant for improving hygiene in commercial salon settings while also offering enhanced user features.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was assigned by the inventors to the Plaintiff, and the assignment was recorded at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-12-08 | '668 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-03-31 | '668 Patent assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2021-06-21 | Initial Assignment of '668 Patent recorded at USPTO |
| 2021-08-10 | '668 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-05-18 | Corrective Assignment of '668 Patent recorded at USPTO |
| 2024-08-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,083,668, “FLEXIBLE LINER WITH INNER AND OUTER LAYERS FOR USE WITH A LIQUID-RECEIVING BASIN,” issued August 10, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need in the spa industry for disposable, one-time-use liners for pedicure foot spas to ensure hygienic conditions between clients. A related challenge is providing a soothing fluid massage feature, such as by generating air bubbles, without compromising the sanitary isolation provided by the liner (’668 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layer flexible liner. An outer layer, which is imperforate, rests against the spa basin to contain the liquid and prevent contamination. A second, inner layer is joined to the outer layer in a specific pattern, creating an air conduit between them. This inner layer has a plurality of openings that allow pressurized air, fed into the conduit via a tube, to be released as bubbles into the water, thereby creating a massage effect while maintaining a hygienic barrier (’668 Patent, col. 2:14-54; Fig. 2A).
- Technical Importance: The design allows for the integration of an aerating massage feature directly into a disposable, hygienic liner, separating this function from the permanent, harder-to-sanitize components of the spa chair itself (’668 Patent, col. 1:45-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12.
- Independent Claim 1 recites the core elements of the liner:
- A "first body of flexible plastic" having a base and wall to form a receptacle that rests against the basin and isolates the liquid.
- 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 and having a "plurality of openings" to provide a fluid pathway to the interior.
- 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.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "flexible liners" (referred to as "Accused Products") that Defendant Goldust Nail Lounge allegedly purchases, imports, and uses in its pedicure spa chairs during the provision of nail salon services (Compl. ¶24, 27).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products are inserted into the basin of salon spa chairs to hold water for pedicures (Compl. ¶27). The liners are described as comprising a multi-layer plastic structure that forms an air conduit, which is connected via a tube to an air source to create streams of bubbles in the water (Compl. ¶15, 26). The complaint includes photographs in Exhibit 2, described as showing an Accused Product turned inside out to reveal its constituent parts, including two plastic bodies, an air conduit, and a flexible tube (Compl. ¶25; Ex. 2). Additional photographs in Exhibit 3 show the Accused Product installed and in use within a spa chair basin at the Defendant's lounge (Compl. ¶27; Ex. 3). The complaint alleges the Accused Products are purchased from the "DoShower company located in China" (Compl. ¶24).
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 to be placed in a basin... | The Accused Products include a first body of flexible plastic with an inner and outer face, a base, and a wall extending from the base to form a receptacle for placement in a 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 base of the first body 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 a plurality of openings that provide a fluid pathway from the air conduit to the receptacle's interior volume. | ¶26 | col. 8:51-65 |
| ...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 in fluid communication with the air conduit, and a free end that can be coupled to a source of pressurized air. | ¶26 | col. 9:33-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "joined to the inner face of the base". The court may need to determine if this requires the "joining" to occur exclusively on the flat, bottom "base" of the liner, or if it can include areas where the base transitions to the wall, and what methods of "joining" (e.g., heat-welding, adhesive) meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the court will be whether the Accused Product's construction embodies "each and every limitation" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶22). While the complaint provides photographs purporting to show the claimed features (Compl. Ex. 2), the actual method of manufacture and the precise structural relationship between the two plastic layers in the Accused Product will likely be a focus of discovery and expert analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "joined to the inner face of the base of the first body of flexible plastic"
Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the structural relationship that creates the claimed "air conduit". The interpretation of where and how the two plastic bodies are connected will be central to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific location and nature of the connection between the layers is a core inventive concept.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes joining the bodies via "heat sealing" but does not explicitly limit the invention to this method, stating the bodies are "permanently coupled" at prescribed areas (’668 Patent, col. 8:49-51). This could support an interpretation that includes other forms of affixation like adhesives.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly the cross-section in Figure 2A, depict the second body (18) and the resulting air conduit (20) situated distinctly on the "base floor" (12) of the receptacle. This could support an argument that the term "base" is limited to the bottom floor of the liner and does not extend to its vertical walls.
The Term: "flexible tube"
Context and Importance: This element provides the essential interface between the liner's internal air conduit and the spa's external air source. Whether the accused product's air-intake mechanism qualifies as a "flexible tube" will be a point of analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, requiring only a "tube" that is "flexible" and has an "attached" end and a "free" end. This could arguably encompass a range of structures that perform this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes two distinct embodiments for this connection: one using an embedded "sealing gasket" (Fig. 2A, element 22) and another using a more distinct, hose-like "flexible tube 22'" that is welded to the liner bodies (Fig. 2B; ’668 Patent, col. 9:33-44). A party could argue the term should be construed to require a discrete, tubular structure rather than merely an opening or port integrated into the liner's plastic body.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a cause of action for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "deliberate and intentional" (Compl. ¶20) and requests treble damages and attorney fees in its prayer for relief (Compl. at 7). The pleading does not, however, allege specific facts to support a finding of willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the ’668 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "joined to the inner face of the base," as taught in a specification that heavily illustrates the structure on the "base floor," be construed to read on the specific multi-layer construction of the accused liner? The outcome of this definitional question will likely control the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural identity: does the accused liner, allegedly sourced from an overseas manufacturer, possess the specific two-body, joined-layer construction required by Claim 1? The court will have to weigh the evidence presented, including the photographic exhibits and forthcoming expert testimony, to determine if there is a direct correspondence between the claim limitations and the physical product.