DCT
1:25-cv-01178
Beauty It Is Inc v. Dispensing Tech BV
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Beauty It Is Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: Dispensing Technologies B.V., Onflair B.V., AFA Polytek Inc., and AFA Dispensing Group B.V. (Netherlands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01178, S.D.N.Y., 02/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant conducts business in the State of New York and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including the assertion of patent infringement against a New York-based Plaintiff, occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its spray bottle products do not infringe Defendant's patent, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable, following Defendant's infringement assertion through Amazon's patent enforcement program.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical pump sprayers designed to produce a sustained, fine, aerosol-like mist without the use of chemical propellants by using a pre-compression mechanism.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant's use of the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) program on or about January 20, 2025, to allege that Plaintiff's products infringe the patent-in-suit. This assertion prompted Plaintiff to file for declaratory judgment.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-20 | ’133 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-07-25 | '133 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-08-22 | Plaintiff began offering Accused Products for sale on Amazon |
| 2025-01-20 | Defendant asserted '133 Patent against Plaintiff via Amazon APEX |
| 2025-02-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,714,133 - "Metered And Active Sprayer Devices With Aerosol Functionality ('Flairosol II')"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,714,133, "Metered And Active Sprayer Devices With Aerosol Functionality ('Flairosol II')", issued July 25, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the desire for the aerosol-like spray functionality—a strong, continuous mist—without the environmental hazards and packaging complexities associated with traditional aerosol cans that use pressurized propellants (’133 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a purely mechanical spray device that builds and maintains fluid pressure internally. A user pumping a trigger operates a piston that draws liquid from a container into a piston chamber and then forces it into a separate "pressure chamber," where it compresses a spring (’133 Patent, col. 1:55-col. 2:4). The stored energy in the spring maintains pressure on the liquid. A specialized "dome valve" at the outlet opens only when the liquid pressure exceeds a preset threshold, which ensures a consistent spray and prevents dripping when the pressure drops (’133 Patent, col. 2:4-12; Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This design allows for a prolonged, fine mist spray from a non-pressurized container, mimicking an aerosol can's performance through purely mechanical action.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as the basis for evaluation (Compl. ¶10).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a pressure chamber comprising a pressure spring and a pressure piston
- a dispensing head comprising a piston and a piston chamber
- a trigger operatively connected to the piston
- a channel in fluid communication with the pressure chamber
- a piston chamber outlet valve provided between said channel and said piston chamber
- an outlet valve; and
- an outlet channel
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Plaintiff’s "spray bottle products" sold on Amazon.com under the "Beautify Beauties" brand via the "Czbrm storefront" (Compl. ¶¶4, 21). The complaint lists nine specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) for the Accused Products (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as "spray bottle products" (Compl. ¶30). It does not provide any technical details on their mechanism of operation. Instead, it makes a negative allegation that a specific claimed feature is "absent from Plaintiff's spray bottle products" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges the products have been sold on Amazon since approximately August 22, 2018, and that selling on Amazon provides significant exposure to the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶23, 25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint is for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The Plaintiff (the accused infringer) alleges that its products are missing at least one element of the asserted claim.
'133 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a pressure chamber comprising a pressure spring and a pressure piston | Plaintiff alleges at least one element of Claim 1 is absent. | ¶30 | col. 18:31-32 |
| a dispensing head comprising: a piston and a piston chamber | Plaintiff alleges at least one element of Claim 1 is absent. | ¶30 | col. 18:33-35 |
| a trigger operatively connected to the piston | Plaintiff alleges at least one element of Claim 1 is absent. | ¶30 | col. 18:36-37 |
| a channel in fluid communication with the pressure chamber | Plaintiff alleges at least one element of Claim 1 is absent. | ¶30 | col. 18:38-39 |
| a piston chamber outlet valve provided between said channel and said piston chamber | Plaintiff alleges this specific element is absent from the Accused Products. | ¶30 | col. 18:40-42 |
| an outlet valve; and an outlet channel | Plaintiff alleges at least one element of Claim 1 is absent. | ¶30 | col. 18:43-45 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute identified in the complaint centers on the scope of the term "piston chamber outlet valve." The case may turn on whether any structure within the Accused Products performs the function of this claimed valve, even if it is not an identical structure to the one depicted in the patent's embodiments (e.g., valve 650 in Fig. 6).
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no information about the actual construction of the accused spray bottles. A central technical question for the court will be to determine the mechanism by which fluid is controlled between the piston and the outlet channel in the Accused Products and whether that mechanism meets the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "piston chamber outlet valve."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "piston chamber outlet valve provided between said channel and said piston chamber"
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the non-infringement argument articulated in the complaint (Compl. ¶30). The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on how this term is construed and whether any component in the Accused Products satisfies the resulting definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of the infringement question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification notes that for the "dome valve," which is a different valve in the system, "[v]arious known valves can be used in place of the dome, such as mechanical valves, spring loaded, spring assisted, elastomeric, and other types" (’133 Patent, col. 7:66-col. 8:2). The patent owner (Defendant) may argue this suggests a flexible, functional approach to defining valves throughout the device, potentially broadening the scope of the "piston chamber outlet valve" as well.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures depict the "outlet valve 650" as a distinct, movable disc-like component situated between the piston chamber and the pressure chamber (’133 Patent, Fig. 6). The Plaintiff may argue that the term requires a discrete, separate structure as depicted in the preferred embodiments, and that a more integrated or functionally different mechanism in its products would not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Patent Invalidity: The complaint includes a cause of action for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, alleging failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 (Compl. ¶¶36-40). The complaint does not, however, plead any specific facts, prior art references, or arguments to support this allegation.
- Unenforceability: The complaint seeks a declaration that the ’133 Patent is unenforceable due to having been "obtained by inequitable conduct upon the USPTO" (Compl. ¶44). No specific facts regarding alleged misrepresentations or omissions during patent prosecution are provided.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and factual comparison: What is the proper construction of the term “piston chamber outlet valve provided between said channel and said piston chamber”? Subsequently, does any structure in the accused spray bottles meet that construed definition, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents?
- A key evidentiary question will be what proof the patent owner (Defendant) can present to demonstrate the presence of the allegedly missing valve structure in the Plaintiff's products. As the moving party for the underlying infringement claim, the Defendant bears the burden of proof, and the dispute will turn on the technical evidence it adduces regarding the specific mechanics of the accused devices.