DCT
1:25-cv-09929
Beauty Union Global Ltd v. Brumis Imports Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Beauty Union Global Limited (Hong Kong)
- Defendant: Brumis Imports, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kloss Stenger & Gormley, LLP; Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09929, S.D.N.Y., 11/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the Defendant is incorporated in New York, maintains its principal place of business within the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s refillable perfume atomizers infringe a patent related to a portable bottle with a specialized valve for refilling from a larger spray bottle.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for portable fragrance containers, offering a method to transfer liquids from pressurized source bottles into a smaller atomizer without spillage.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on August 8, 2025. Defendant allegedly responded on September 12, 2025, claiming non-infringement but continued to sell the accused product. This pre-suit notice may form the basis for a future claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-04-20 | ’388 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-12-20 | ’388 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-06-XX | Plaintiff purchases Accused Device |
| 2025-08-08 | Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant |
| 2025-08-22 | Defendant responds to Plaintiff's letter |
| 2025-09-12 | Defendant claims non-infringement in further response |
| 2025-11-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,079,388 - "Refill perfume bottle"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inconvenience of carrying large, expensive perfume bottles and the wastefulness of refilling smaller travel bottles by spilling liquid from the source bottle through a narrow opening (’388 Patent, col. 1:10-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a small, refillable bottle designed for easy, spill-free refilling from a standard perfume spray bottle. It features a vaporizer at the top for dispensing and a unique refill mechanism at the bottom. This bottom mechanism includes a check valve that opens when the exposed stem of a source perfume bottle is pushed into it, allowing the liquid to be pumped directly into the refill bottle. When the stem is removed, the valve automatically closes to prevent leakage (’388 Patent, col. 2:46-59, col. 3:32-38). The interaction is depicted in Figure 3 of the patent, which shows the refill bottle (10) positioned to receive liquid from the stem (152) of a source bottle (150) (’388 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This design provided an efficient and clean method for transferring pressurized liquids into a portable container, addressing a long-felt need for a travel-friendly solution that minimizes waste of expensive products (’388 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’388 Patent (Compl. ¶22).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A body having an upper portion with a first opening and a bottom portion with a second opening;
- Wherein the first opening has a vaporizer mechanism for dispensing liquid, comprising a tube, a pump communicating with the tube, and a nozzle communicating with the pump;
- Wherein the second opening has a refill mechanism comprising a check valve adapted to receive the stem of a bottle;
- So that when the stem is pushed through the check valve, the valve opens to receive liquid;
- And when the stem is withdrawn, the valve closes to prevent leakage.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "MAYIM Refillable Perfume Atomizer" product (the "Accused Device") (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Device is a portable liquid dispenser designed to be refilled from larger perfume bottles (Compl. ¶22). According to the complaint, it operates by pressing the base of the device onto the nozzle stem of a source bottle, which transfers liquid into the dispenser. The stored liquid is then dispensed as a spray from the top of the device (Compl. ¶22). The complaint includes a photograph from the product's packaging showing instructions to "SPRAY UP TO 100 TIMES BEFORE REFILLING," illustrating its intended use (Compl. Fig. 7). The complaint alleges that the Accused Device is sold through major retailers such as Macy's, Marshalls, and T.J. Maxx (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’388 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body having an upper portion with a first opening and a bottom portion with a second opening; | The Accused Device has a body with an upper portion containing a first opening for the vaporizer and a bottom portion with a second opening for the refill mechanism. This is shown in an annotated photograph with the outer shell removed (Compl. Fig. 3). | ¶22 | col. 2:48-49 |
| wherein the first opening has a vaporizer mechanism for dispensing non-compressible liquid... comprising a tube..., a pump communicating with the tube, and a nozzle communicating with the pump...; | The upper portion of the Accused Device contains a vaporizer mechanism with a tube, pump, and nozzle for spraying liquid. The complaint provides an exploded-view photograph identifying these components (Compl. Fig. 6). | ¶22 | col. 3:9-13 |
| wherein the second opening has a refill mechanism comprising; a check valve adapted to receive the stem of the bottle... | The bottom portion of the Accused Device has a refill mechanism containing a check valve. A photograph shows the internal components of the refill mechanism, labeling the check valve and second opening (Compl. Fig. 8). | ¶22 | col. 3:32-38 |
| ...so that when the stem is pushed through the check valve, the check valve is open to and receives the non-compressible liquid...; | When the stem of a source bottle is pushed into the second opening, the check valve opens to receive liquid. The complaint illustrates this with a series of photographs showing the valve in a closed state and then in an open, pushed state receiving liquid (Compl. Figs. 10, 11). | ¶22 | col. 3:36-38 |
| ...and when the stem is withdrawn from the check valve, the check valve is closed to prevent leakage of the non-compressible liquid. | When the source bottle stem is removed, the check valve closes to prevent leakage. The complaint alleges this functionality and provides a photograph purporting to show the valve in this closed state after filling (Compl. Fig. 14). | ¶22 | col. 4:46-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint presents a theory of literal infringement with detailed photographic evidence. A potential area of dispute may involve the precise definition of "check valve," and whether the accused mechanism functions in a way that is structurally and operationally identical to the claimed invention, or if there are subtle differences Defendant may use to argue non-infringement.
- Technical Questions: The central technical question will be whether the Accused Device's refill mechanism, as depicted in the complaint’s photographs (Compl. Figs. 8-14), performs each step recited in the claim. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused valve is merely "adapted to receive the stem" and opens/closes in the specific manner required by the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "check valve"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central innovation of the patent's refilling mechanism. The entire infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused refill mechanism constitutes a "check valve" as understood in the context of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused product's one-way filling port falls within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides a functional definition: a valve that is "adapted to receive the stem," "is open" when the stem is pushed, and "is closed" when the stem is withdrawn. Plaintiff may argue that any structure performing these functions is a "check valve" for the purposes of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to a specific embodiment, "check valve 32," shown in Figure 1b (’388 Patent, col. 3:32-35; Fig. 1b). Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the specific type of spring-loaded or similarly structured valve depicted and described, rather than any mechanism that allows one-way fluid flow.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant encourages its distributors, retailers, and manufacturers to sell the infringing product with knowledge of the ’388 Patent (Compl. ¶32). The complaint's inclusion of an instructional image from the Accused Device's packaging may be used as evidence of intent to induce end-users to perform the infringing act of refilling (Compl. Fig. 7).
Willful Infringement
- While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint establishes a basis for willfulness by alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’388 Patent as of an August 8, 2025 cease-and-desist letter. The complaint further alleges that Defendant continued to sell the Accused Device even after investigating and responding to the infringement claim (Compl. ¶¶24, 25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural and functional correspondence: Does the accused "MAYIM" atomizer's refill port operate as the specific "check valve" described in Claim 1, which requires not only allowing one-way liquid flow but opening and closing in direct mechanical response to the insertion and withdrawal of a source bottle's stem?
- A key evidentiary question will concern knowledge and intent: What evidence demonstrates that Defendant, particularly after receiving the August 8, 2025 notice letter and conducting its own investigation, continued its allegedly infringing activities despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent?