DCT

2:19-cv-06010

Malloy v. Tadmor

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Claude Malloy Sr. (New York)
- Defendant: Taylor Tadmor (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
Case Identification: 2:19-cv-06010, E.D.N.Y., 10/25/2019
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of New York because the defendant is located in Suffolk County and "all of the events or meetings occurred in the District Of Suffolk County, New York in 2010."
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hand sanitizer holder product infringes a patent for a necklace-style, hand-shaped hand sanitizer dispenser.
Technical Context: The technology relates to personal, portable dispensers for liquid-gel hand sanitizer, a consumer product category focused on convenience and hygiene.
Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed pro se. No prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings (e.g., IPRs) are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-04-26	'807 Patent Priority Date
2010	"Events or meetings" between parties alleged
2013-07-16	U.S. Patent No. 8,484,807 Issues
2019-10-25	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,484,807 - Necklace with plastic hand having a fresh scent compartment, issued July 16, 2013

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent background describes that hand washing is not practiced as frequently as needed, and that public facilities in many areas may lack proper sanitation, leading to the spread of germs and infection. (’807 Patent, col. 1:12-19).
The Patented Solution: The invention is a wearable assembly designed to provide a constant and convenient means for hand sanitization. It consists of a lanyard necklace that attaches via a swivel hook to a refillable, hand-shaped plastic container which holds liquid-gel sanitizer. (’807 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9). A user dispenses the sanitizer by opening a snap-top cap located at the "wrist" of the hand-shaped container and squeezing the container. (’807 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
Technical Importance: The invention aims to serve as a physical reminder for users to sanitize their hands and provides a readily accessible method for doing so in public spaces. (’807 Patent, col. 1:20-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts the patent generally, which contains a single independent claim (Claim 1).
The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A necklace including a swivel hook.
- A "hand-shaped compartment" made of plastic that includes two distinct "neck portions."
- A "first neck portion" located in the "middle of the palm area" for attaching to a hang tab.
- A "second neck portion" located on the "wrist area" with threads for a cap and a hole for dispensing liquid-gel.
- A "plastic hang tab" with two adjacent apertures, which is used to connect the first neck portion to the necklace's swivel hook.
- A "snap-top cap" with threads that mate with the second neck portion.
- A functional step wherein a user can open the cap and press the compartment to dispense the sanitizer.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused product as "item # sm-1535." (Compl. p. 4, ¶IV).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the defendant "manufactures & imports this item # sm-1535 from their factory in China Into the USA." (Compl. p. 4, ¶IV). The complaint does not provide a technical description, diagrams, or photographs of the accused product, nor does it describe its specific functionality beyond the general allegation of patent infringement. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the manufacture and importation of "item # sm-1535" constitutes infringement of the ’807 Patent. (Compl. p. 4, ¶IV). The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the accused product to the patent’s claim limitations. The infringement theory is stated in a conclusory fashion, precluding the creation of a claim chart summary.

Identified Points of Contention

Factual Questions: The central issue will be factual: what is the precise structure and operation of "item # sm-1535"? Without this evidence, any infringement analysis is speculative. The court will require evidence establishing whether the accused product contains every structural element recited in Claim 1.
Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over whether the accused product contains the specific combination of features required by the claim. This raises the question of whether "item # sm-1535" includes a "hand-shaped compartment" with two distinct "neck portions"—one in the palm for a hang tab and a separate one on the wrist for a cap—as strictly required by the claim language. (’807 Patent, col. 2:47-59).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent's language, the following terms may become central to the infringement analysis.

The Term: "hand-shaped compartment"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the overall aesthetic and structure of the claimed container. The required degree of resemblance to a human hand for a product to be considered "hand-shaped" will be critical to determining the scope of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that the term should not be limited to a literal five-fingered hand and could encompass other stylized or abstract hand-like shapes that serve the same purpose. The claim language itself does not specify the number of fingers. (’807 Patent, col. 2:44-46).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's drawings exclusively depict a container with a distinct five-fingered shape. (’807 Patent, Figs. 2A, 5). A party could argue the term is limited to the embodiments shown, as no alternatives are described in the specification.
The Term: "two neck portions"
- Context and Importance: This is a key structural limitation requiring two separate and functionally distinct features on the container. Infringement requires the accused product to possess both a "first neck portion" in the palm for attachment and a "second neck portion" on the wrist for dispensing. (’807 Patent, col. 2:47-59).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any two structures that perform the recited functions of attachment and dispensing satisfy the limitation, even if they are not explicitly identified as "necks" or do not perfectly match the drawings.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly distinguishes the location and function of the two necks. The detailed description further separates the "circular neck 14 made in the middle of the palm area" from the "neck w/threads 16 made on the wrist area." (’807 Patent, col. 2:5-8). This language may support a narrow construction requiring two physically separate and structurally different features.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not allege facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The allegations are limited to direct infringement through manufacturing and importation. (Compl. p. 4, ¶IV).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, it alleges that "events or meetings occurred" between the parties in 2010, which could be used to argue pre-suit knowledge of the inventor's rights. (Compl. p. 4, ¶III). Further, the complaint demands that the defendant "immediately stops manufactures & imports" of the accused item, which is relevant to potential post-filing willful infringement. (Compl. p. 5).

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

A threshold issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the accused "item # sm-1535," once its specific design is presented to the court, actually embody all of the highly specific structural limitations recited in the single claim of the ’807 Patent?
The case may also turn on a question of structural scope: can the claim term "hand-shaped compartment" with "two neck portions," one in the palm and one on the wrist, be construed to cover the accused product's design, or is the claim limited to a structure that is substantially identical to the patent's specific drawings?