Better Houseware Corp v. Dorai Home Inc

Here is the transformed patent infringement complaint analysis, formatted as a senior litigation partner memo.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Houseware Corporation (New York)
  • Defendant: Dorai Home, Inc. (Utah)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boris Kogan & Associates, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-08498, E.D.N.Y., 12/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because its principal place of business is located there, and Defendant conducts substantial business in the district, including directing sales and shipping products to customers in New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its dishmat product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,832,777 and that the patent's asserted claims are invalid and unenforceable.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns absorptive drying implements, such as dish mats, that combine a rigid, moisture-wicking material like diatomaceous earth with a protective, flexible outer covering.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by an infringement report filed by Defendant Dorai with Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff Better Houseware’s product listing. The complaint also notes that during prosecution, the patent examiner initially rejected claims as obvious over prior art, a point Plaintiff leverages in its invalidity contentions.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,832,777 - “Absorptive Drying Implement”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,832,777, “Absorptive Drying Implement,” issued December 5, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional dish drying racks as bulky and visually unappealing, while traditional textile drying mats can become saturated with water, promoting the growth of bacteria and requiring frequent washing (’777 Patent, col. 1:10-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a drying implement featuring one or more rigid absorption panels made of diatomaceous earth, which is a highly porous material capable of rapidly absorbing and evaporating water (’777 Patent, col. 5:31-44). These panels are at least partially encased in a flexible and resilient covering, such as molded silicone, which protects dishes and has apertures to allow water to drain through to the absorption panel below (’777 Patent, col. 2:4-25). The implement can be designed to be foldable for compact storage (’777 Patent, col. 2:36-44).
• Technical Importance: The design aims to combine the hygienic, fast-drying properties of diatomaceous earth with the protective, cushioning qualities of a silicone mat, creating a solution that is more sanitary and storable than prior art options (’777 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:13-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity concerning independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 (Compl. ¶ 54, 59).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A rigid absorption panel that comprises diatomaceous earth;
  • A covering that is flexible and resilient;
  • The covering is configured to at least partially and removably encase the rigid absorption panel;
  • The covering has a top surface, side edges, and "at least one of a bottom lip, a pocket or a strap";
  • The "bottom lip, the pocket or the strap" is configured to secure the covering to the panel;
  • The top surface comprises a mesh of ribs forming apertures to allow liquid to drain to the panel.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional grounds of invalidity and non-infringement after discovery (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is Plaintiff’s “The Magic Dishmat: Stone & Silicone Quick Dry Mat Item #3418” (“dishmat #3418”) (Compl. ¶ 2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes dishmat #3418 as a dishmat that includes a single absorption panel made of diatomaceous earth (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20). The complaint includes an image of the product, which depicts a rectangular stone-like panel seated within a surrounding silicone frame (Compl., Ex. 2). Plaintiff sold the product on the Amazon e-commerce platform, where it allegedly competed with Defendant’s products, until its listing was removed following Defendant’s infringement report (Compl. ¶¶ 13-15, 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a declaratory judgment action, the "allegations" are Plaintiff's contentions of non-infringement.

’777 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern whether the accused product's frame constitutes a "covering" that "at least partially...encases" the panel, as required by the claim. The visual evidence provided shows a frame around the perimeter of the panel, raising the question of whether this structure meets the claim's "encasing" limitation (Compl., Ex. 2).
• Technical Questions: The non-infringement case hinges on the absence of specific structures: a "bottom lip, a pocket or a strap." The central technical question will be whether any feature of the accused product's frame performs the securing function of these claimed elements, which could raise issues of literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "at least partially and removably encase"

• Context and Importance: The meaning of this term is central to both infringement and validity. Plaintiff's invalidity argument challenges the written description and enablement for "partial" encasing, and the non-infringement argument may turn on whether the accused product's frame can be said to "encase" the panel at all (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the flexible layer can be "partially extending around the top, sides, and bottom absorptive layer," which may support an interpretation where the covering need not surround the majority of the panel (’777 Patent, col. 2:66-67).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff cites a dictionary definition of "encase" as meaning to "cover or surround something...completely," suggesting a narrower construction (Compl. ¶ 22). Embodiments in the patent show coverings that wrap around the panel and are secured by features like "sleeves" or "straps," which may suggest a more substantial form of encasement than a simple perimeter frame (’777 Patent, col. 8:41-52; Fig. 11).

The Term: "at least one of a bottom lip, a pocket or a strap"

• Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s non-infringement defense is explicitly based on the asserted absence of these structures in its product (Compl. ¶ 56). The construction of this Markush group will therefore be determinative for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists a wide range of potential securing mechanisms, including "peripheral lips," "end pockets, sleeves, straps, VELCRO, fasteners, corner caps or other means for securing the absorption layer thereto," which could support a broad interpretation of the claimed terms (’777 Patent, col. 2:56-63).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff argues that the patent fails to provide sufficient teachings for an embodiment with only a singular "bottom lip," "pocket," or "strap," as the specification allegedly only discloses embodiments with pairs of such features (Compl. ¶¶ 26-29). This argument may be used to argue that the terms should be construed narrowly in line with the disclosed plural embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for indirect infringement, among other theories (Compl. ¶ 55). However, the specific factual contentions for non-infringement focus exclusively on the physical characteristics of the accused product itself, addressing a theory of direct, literal non-infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific indirect infringement theory.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "encase", as used in the patent, be construed to read on the accused product’s perimeter frame? The outcome will likely depend on whether the court adopts a broad functional meaning or a narrower structural one based on the patent's disclosed embodiments.
• A second key issue will be one of validity under § 112: The complaint raises targeted written description and enablement challenges, questioning whether the patent's specification adequately supports the full scope of the claims, particularly for a "partial" encasement and for securing structures claimed in the singular ("at least one of").
• A final dispositive question will be the strength of the obviousness case under § 103: Plaintiff has presented a detailed invalidity theory based on a combination of numerous prior art references, buttressed by the patent's own prosecution history where the examiner made similar obviousness rejections. The court's evaluation of these combinations will be critical to the patent's survival.