DCT
2:19-cv-00835
Sunscreen Mist Holdings LLC v. Snappyscreen Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: SnappyScreen, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: VanOphem IP Law, PLC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00835, E.D.N.Y., 09/10/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant has its business headquarters in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automated sunscreen spray booths infringe a patent related to a sunscreen application vending apparatus.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated, self-service vending machines that apply sunscreen spray to users, typically located at outdoor venues like resorts and beaches.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s founder, Kristen McClelland, contacted Plaintiff in 2010 seeking information about Plaintiff's products and business, and offered to acquire the company. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the asserted patent since at least 2014. These allegations may be used to support claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-07-31 | ’897 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-07-19 | ’897 Patent Issue Date |
| 2006-00-00 | Plaintiff's predecessor begins interstate commerce |
| 2010-00-00 | Alleged contact by Defendant's founder with Plaintiff |
| 2011-00-00 | Defendant SNAPPY formed |
| 2014-03-12 | ’897 Patent assigned to Plaintiff |
| 2014-00-00 | Alleged date Defendant's knowledge of infringement began |
| 2019-09-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,918,897 - "SPF VENDING MACHINE AND METHOD"
Issued July 19, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an economically efficient, automated sunscreen application machine suitable for outdoor, public settings like beaches or pools where such a service is most needed. It notes that manual application is often uneven and incomplete, while existing automated systems were typically designed for indoor spas, not for unattended, pay-per-use outdoor operation. (’897 Patent, col. 1:45-56; col. 2:1-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated vending apparatus that accepts payment, allows a user to select from a plurality of sunscreen grades (differentiated by SPF), and then sprays the user with the chosen lotion inside an application booth. (’897 Patent, Abstract). The design contemplates features necessary for unattended outdoor use, such as a payment receiver, a locking door to control access, a user selection panel inside the booth, and a drainage system. (’897 Patent, col. 4:56-65; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The invention addresses the logistical and environmental challenges of placing a self-service, automated cosmetic application system in an outdoor, public environment, moving it from a supervised spa setting to a stand-alone vending model. (’897 Patent, col. 2:8-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 17 (method). (Compl. ¶58).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): A vending machine for dispensing sunscreen lotion, comprising:
- means to accept payment from a user,
- means to store sunscreen lotion,
- means to spray the user with the stored sunscreen lotion after acceptance of payment,
- wherein the means to store sunscreen lotion is adapted to store a plurality of grades of sunscreen lotion,
- the machine further comprising means for the user to select which grade of sunscreen lotion will be sprayed by the means to spray.
- Independent Claim 17 (Method): A method of dispensing sunscreen lotion, comprising:
- providing a machine which is adapted to receive and accept payment and store and spray sunscreen lotion;
- spraying a user with the sunscreen lotion for a predetermined amount of time or volume of lotion upon a user providing payment to the machine;
- storing a plurality of grades of sunscreen lotion; and
- providing means for the user to select which grade of sunscreen lotion will be sprayed by the means to spray.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12, which add limitations such as single-use activation per payment, a no-slip floor, activation means, SPF-based lotion grades, and adaptation for outdoor use. (Compl. ¶58).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "SNAPPY Product," also marketed as "SnappyScreen," which is described as a spray-on sunscreen machine. (Compl. ¶35).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the SnappyScreen product is an automated booth that applies sunscreen to a user. (Compl. ¶35). It is alleged to include three different sunscreen lotions with SPF values of 15, 30, and 50. (Compl. ¶36). The complaint provides a screenshot from Defendant's website showing a user interface with distinct buttons for selecting among the available SPF options. (Compl. ¶36, p. 6). The complaint also includes an image of the SnappyScreen booth in an outdoor, poolside setting, suggesting its use in the commercial environments contemplated by the patent. (Compl. ¶35, p. 6). The product is allegedly marketed and sold to hotels such as LOEWS and HYATT for use by their patrons. (Compl. ¶12-18, 39-40).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’897 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vending machine for dispensing sunscreen lotion comprising: means to accept payment from a user, | The SNAPPY Product is described as a vending apparatus that operates after a user makes a selection and presses a "START" button, with pricing information visible on the interface. | ¶1, ¶36 | col. 8:57-58 |
| means to store sunscreen lotion, | The SNAPPY Product is a sunscreen application machine that stores different sunscreen lotions. | ¶35, ¶36 | col. 8:58 |
| and means to spray the user with the stored sunscreen lotion after acceptance of payment | The SNAPPY Product is a "spray-on sunscreen machine" that applies lotion to the user. | ¶35 | col. 8:59-61 |
| wherein the means to store sunscreen lotion is adapted to store a plurality of grades of sunscreen lotion, | The SNAPPY Product allegedly "includes three (3) different sunscreen lotions (SPF 15, 30, 50)." | ¶36 | col. 8:62-64 |
| the machine further comprising means for the user to select which grade of sunscreen lotion will be sprayed by the means to spray. | The SNAPPY Product "allows the user to select one of the sunscreen lotions for application to the user," as shown in an image of its control panel with options for SPF 15, 30, and 50. | ¶36 | col. 8:64-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): A significant portion of the asserted claims are drafted in "means-plus-function" format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The scope of limitations like "means to accept payment" is not limitless but is confined to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing that function, and their equivalents. The infringement analysis will therefore depend on a comparison between the specific structures in the accused SnappyScreen product (e.g., its payment processing hardware and software) and the structures disclosed in the ’897 patent (e.g., payment receiver 60 and processor 62). (’897 Patent, col. 4:11-28).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide detailed technical evidence of the internal workings of the SNAPPY Product, such as its specific pump, nozzle, and control system architecture. A key question will be whether the evidence produced during discovery shows that the accused product’s internal components are structurally equivalent to those disclosed in the patent for performing the functions of storing, selecting, and spraying multiple lotion grades.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "means for the user to select which grade of sunscreen lotion will be sprayed" (Claim 1); "providing means for the user to select which grade of sunscreen lotion will be sprayed" (Claim 17).
- Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation central to the invention's concept of a customizable, user-operated vending machine. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on what specific structures from the patent are identified as performing this function and whether the accused device contains equivalent structures. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the user's choice to the machine's mechanical operation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the function is simply "selecting," and any user interface that achieves this (e.g., buttons, touch screen) is covered. The specification describes the function broadly: "a user can select which SPF grade... he or she wishes to have applied by... pressing the corresponding button 81-85 on control panel 35." (’897 Patent, col. 5:58-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The corresponding structure disclosed in the patent is a physical user control panel (35) with distinct buttons (81-85) electrically coupled to a "panel processor 36," which in turn sends signals (110) to activate specific pumps (181-185) connected to corresponding lotion tanks (381-385). (’897 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 7:38-55). A party could argue that this specific electromechanical architecture limits the claim's scope, and a system with a fundamentally different control logic or hardware (e.g., a single pump with a mixing valve controlled by a software interface) might not be an equivalent.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that SNAPPY had "specific knowledge of the '897 Patent" and induced third parties, including hotel chains LOEWS and HYATT and their customers, to directly infringe the patent claims. (Compl. ¶59-60). The alleged inducement stems from SNAPPY providing the infringing product with the knowledge and intent that it be used in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶59).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that SNAPPY's infringement "is and has been willful." (Compl. ¶65). This allegation is supported by claims that SNAPPY has had "actual knowledge that the SNAPPY Product infringes the claims of the '897 Patent since at least 2014" (Compl. ¶56) and that its founder had pre-formation knowledge of the plaintiff's business and technology from communications in 2010. (Compl. ¶33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope under § 112(f): because the key limitations of the asserted claims are in means-plus-function format, the case will likely turn on claim construction. The central question for the court will be to define the specific structures disclosed in the ’897 patent that perform the claimed functions (e.g., accepting payment, selecting a grade) and to then determine whether the corresponding structures in the accused SnappyScreen product are the same or structurally equivalent.
- A second critical issue will be one of pre-suit knowledge and intent: the plaintiff makes specific allegations that the defendant’s founder was aware of the plaintiff’s technology and business model even before founding the defendant company. A key evidentiary question will be what proof exists to substantiate these early interactions and the defendant's alleged knowledge of the patent since 2014, as this will be central to the claim for willful infringement.