DCT

1:25-cv-08395

Wenzhouduoliang Intl Trade Co Ltd v. Colgate Palmolive Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-08395, S.D.N.Y., 10/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendant Colgate-Palmolive resides in the district, and the events giving rise to the action, namely Defendant's patent infringement complaints submitted to Amazon, occurred in or were directed to the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their oral-care toothbrush products do not infringe Defendant's U.S. Patent No. 8,734,042, and that the patent is invalid, following Defendant’s infringement complaints on Amazon that resulted in the removal of Plaintiffs' product listings.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns oral care implements, such as disposable toothbrushes, that incorporate a dispenser for an oral care agent designed to release its contents rapidly upon use.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the justiciable controversy arose from Defendant’s submission of patent-infringement complaints to Amazon.com against Plaintiffs, which prompted Amazon to remove Plaintiffs' product listings and disable sales.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-03-31 ’042 Patent Priority Date
2014-05-27 ’042 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-01 Defendant allegedly submits patent-infringement complaints to Amazon
2025-10-10 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,734,042 - Oral Care Implement with Rapid Flavor Release

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,734,042, "Oral Care Implement with Rapid Flavor Release," issued May 27, 2014 (the "’042 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need for single-use or disposable toothbrushes for travelers or individuals in situations where a water supply is unavailable, noting that prior art solutions with integrated toothpaste channels could be uneconomical or result in stale product. (’042 Patent, col. 1:40-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an oral care implement featuring a head with at least one "oral care dispenser," such as a gel capsule, that is "configured to release an oral care material within about five seconds when exposed to water at a temperature of about 35° C. to about 40° C." (’042 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4). This design aims to provide a convenient, portable, and hygienic oral care experience by keeping the active agent sealed until the moment of use.
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve upon disposable toothbrushes by ensuring the freshness and efficacy of the oral care agent while enabling use without requiring a sink or separate toothpaste. (’042 Patent, col. 1:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to "any claim of the ’042 Patent" without specifying which claims were asserted by the Defendant. (’042 Patent, Compl. ¶24). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • An oral care implement, comprising: a handle; and a head connected to one end of the handle,
    • wherein the head comprises at least one cleaning element and at least one oral care dispenser, and
    • wherein the oral care dispenser is configured to release an oral care material within five seconds when exposed to water having a temperature of about 35° C. to about 40° C.
  • The complaint makes general allegations of non-infringement and invalidity concerning the patent as a whole. (Compl. ¶¶1, 33, 41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Non-Infringing Products" are various "oral-care toothbrush products" sold by the five Plaintiffs on Amazon.com under numerous Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs). (Compl. ¶¶8-12, 32).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides a functional description of the accused products primarily by contrasting them with the patented technology. It alleges the products are "designed to dissolve in water without applied heat" and "rely on moisture exposure," which is presented as a "material technological distinction" from the patented invention, which is characterized by the Plaintiffs as being directed to "heat-induced expansion." (Compl. ¶34.a-b). The complaint asserts that the removal of these products from Amazon has caused significant business harm. (Compl. ¶¶7, 21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment, this section summarizes the Plaintiffs' allegations of non-infringement. The complaint does not provide a formal claim chart but makes several specific arguments against infringement, which are organized below against representative Claim 1 of the ’042 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’042 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an oral care dispenser Plaintiffs' products are "designed to dissolve in water without applied heat," relying instead on general "moisture exposure." ¶34.a-b col. 24:15-18
configured to release an oral care material within five seconds when exposed to water having a temperature of about 35° C. to about 40° C. The complaint alleges the accused products' reliance on moisture exposure, rather than a specific heat-based mechanism, represents a "material technological distinction" and that their "different operating principles preclude literal infringement." ¶34.a-b col. 24:1-12
[an oral care dispenser comprising] an oral care material Plaintiffs allege their products "do not include the thermally reactive material composition recited in the claims of the ’042 Patent." ¶34.c col. 5:26-66

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern the interpretation of the temperature and time limitation in claim 1. The analysis raises the question of whether "configured to release...when exposed to water having a temperature of about 35° C. to about 40° C." requires activation by warm water as a necessary condition, or if it merely defines a performance characteristic under those specific conditions. Plaintiffs' argument that their products operate with unheated water suggests this will be a central point of contention. (Compl. ¶34.a).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused products operate via "moisture exposure," contrasting this with what it terms the patent's "heat-induced expansion" mechanism. (’042 Patent, Compl. ¶34.b). This raises a factual question for the court: what is the actual physical mechanism of release for both the accused products and the invention as claimed? The patent specification primarily describes a "water-soluble shell" dissolving, which may or may not align with the complaint's characterization. (’042 Patent, col. 24:3).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of most claim terms, but its core arguments center on the functional language of the independent claims.

  • The Term: "configured to release ... when exposed to water having a temperature of about 35° C. to about 40° C."
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the focal point of Plaintiffs' non-infringement theory. Its construction will be critical to determining whether products that activate in unheated water fall outside the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary basis for the Plaintiffs' assertion of a "material technological distinction." (Compl. ¶34.a).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the patent describing the invention's utility for travelers "away from home" and potentially without a "water supply" could suggest that activation by saliva (at body temperature, i.e., ~37° C) is a contemplated use, making the specific temperature range a performance benchmark rather than a strict requirement for infringement. (’042 Patent, col. 1:41-49).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific. The patent's abstract, summary, and the detailed description of an experiment to measure release time all explicitly reference this temperature range, which could support an argument that the invention is narrowly tailored to activation by warm water. (’042 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4; col. 19:19-24).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement. It contains a second count seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity, asserting that one or more claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, but does not provide specific factual support for these allegations. (Compl. ¶¶41-42).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the claim language "when exposed to water having a temperature of about 35° C. to about 40° C." define a necessary condition for infringement, or does it describe a performance capability? The resolution will determine whether a product that activates in room-temperature water can infringe.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: the case will require a factual comparison between the accused products' alleged "moisture exposure" activation and the "water-soluble" dispenser described and claimed in the ’042 Patent to determine if a material operational difference exists.
  • A third central question will be patent validity: beyond the infringement dispute, the Plaintiffs' broad allegations of invalidity open the door for discovery and expert testimony on whether the claims of the ’042 Patent meet the statutory requirements of patentability in light of the prior art and other legal standards.