DCT
2:23-cv-00378
Mayborn Uk Ltd v. Nutrits Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mayborn (UK) Limited (England), Mayborn USA, Inc. (New York), Mayborn Group Limited (England)
- Defendant: Nutrits, Ltd. (Israel)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00378, E.D. Tex., 08/22/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a foreign entity, making venue proper in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Nanobebe" line of baby bottles infringes a patent related to the design of baby bottle nipples that mimic a human breast.
- Technical Context: The technology is in the field of infant care products, specifically focusing on bottle and nipple designs that aim to provide a more natural feeding experience to ease the transition between breast and bottle feeding.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patent's pending issuance and claims, accompanied by infringement claim charts, prior to the filing of the lawsuit. This allegation forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-06-29 | U.S. Patent No. 11,730,680 Priority Date |
| 2023-08-10 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of pending issuance and infringement |
| 2023-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,730,680 Issues |
| 2023-08-22 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,730,680 - "Baby Bottle With Flexible Nipple Regions"
Issued August 22, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes challenges with prior art baby bottle teats, noting that while some attempted to mimic the human breast, the point at which they flexed was often "undefined and unpredictable" (’680 Patent, col. 1:43-44). Other designs for valved bottles, intended to reduce colic, were described as potentially "frail and difficult to machine" (’680 Patent, col. 1:55-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a baby bottle nipple assembly with a more anatomically-mimicking design. A key feature is an "areola portion" between the teat and the base, which can include a "flex region" with grooves or channels (’680 Patent, col. 3:1-5). This structure is intended to allow the teat to move back and forth during feeding, more closely replicating the natural movement of a human breast (’680 Patent, col. 3:36-44; Fig. 1). The overall assembly is designed to form a wide, breast-like shape when attached to a bottle.
- Technical Importance: This design approach sought to create a "more natural feeding action" by providing a nipple that not only looked like a human breast but also moved and flexed in a similar manner during use (’680 Patent, col. 2:13-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶44).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A vessel with an opening comprising a rim;
- An assembly to mount and seal over the vessel, which includes:
- A collar to removably couple to a nipple;
- A nipple with a teat, aperture, base, an areola portion, and a flange to seal over the vessel rim;
- The flange extends from a "substantially cylindrical lower portion of the base" to define the "outermost nipple circumference";
- An air vent that "projects internally into the nipple interior below the teat";
- The nipple and collar together define a "breast shape" comprising a teat projecting from a domed configuration that extends to a "widest circumferential edge of the collar."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Nutrits's "Plastic Breastmilk Baby Bottle" and "Flexy Silicone Baby Bottle," marketed and sold under the "Nanobebe" brand (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are baby bottles marketed with an emphasis on their breast-like design, promoted as an "Award Winning Innovation for Breastfed Babies" that provides a "natural mom-like feel" and "smooth transitions between breast and bottle" (Compl. ¶54; p. 12). The complaint includes an exploded-view diagram from the product's instruction manual, showing a multi-part assembly consisting of a vessel body, a ring (collar), and a nipple/teat that are twisted together for use (Compl. p. 13). Plaintiff alleges that since its own "breast-like" bottle was launched, the industry has moved to copy its design (Compl. ¶37). The complaint includes an image comparing a "Traditional bottle" to "Mayborn's breast-like bottle" to illustrate this shift (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’680 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a vessel with an opening comprising a rim | The Accused Products are baby bottles that have a vessel with a rimmed opening. An instruction manual diagram labels the "Vessel," "Vessel opening," and "Rim." | ¶63; p. 13 | col. 5:60-63 |
| b) an assembly configured to mount and seal over the vessel comprising: i) a collar configured to removably couple to a nipple and mount over the vessel opening | The Accused Products have an assembly including a "ring" (collar) that is removably coupled to the nipple and mounts over the vessel opening by twisting on. A product diagram shows a collar configured to couple to a nipple. | ¶63; p. 13 | col. 6:63-col. 7:1 |
| ii) a nipple having a teat with an aperture, a base, an areola portion between the teat and the base, and a flange configured to seal over the vessel rim | The nipple of the Accused Products is alleged to have a teat, aperture, base, and areola portion. A labeled photograph in the complaint identifies these specific components. | ¶64; p. 14 | col. 7:1-4 |
| iii) wherein the flange extends from a substantially cylindrical lower portion of the base to define the outermost nipple circumference | The flange of the accused nipple is alleged to extend from the base to form the outermost circumference. A labeled photograph purports to show the "Flange" and "Outermost nipple circumference." | ¶64; p. 14 | col. 7:4-6 |
| iv) wherein an air vent projects internally into the nipple interior below the teat | The Accused Products allegedly include an air vent that projects internally into the nipple. A labeled photograph shows a feature identified as an "Air vent" inside the nipple. | ¶65; p. 14 | col. 7:7-8 |
| v) wherein the nipple and collar together define a breast shape comprising a teat projecting from a domed configuration that extends outwardly and downwardly to a widest circumferential edge of the collar | The assembled nipple and collar of the Accused Products are alleged to define a "breast shape." A labeled product photo shows a "Breast shape" with a "Teat" projecting from a "Domed configuration extending out and down" to a "Widest circumferential edge." | ¶66; p. 15 | col. 7:9-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "breast shape." While the claim provides a geometric definition, the term is also descriptive and subjective. The case may turn on whether the accused bottle's overall configuration, which the instruction manual shows being assembled from a "silicone body," a "neck ring," and a "nipple/teat" (Compl. p. 13), meets the specific structural limitations of a "nipple and collar" that "together define" the claimed shape.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused nipple has an "areola portion" and an "air vent" based on photographs with labels (Compl. p. 14). A technical question will be whether these labeled features function as required by the patent. For instance, does the accused "air vent" meet the precise structural limitation of "project[ing] internally into the nipple interior below the teat" as defined in the patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "breast shape"
Context and Importance: This term is a core element of Claim 1 and central to the product's marketing and asserted novelty. Its construction will be critical, as infringement hinges on whether the accused product's geometry falls within the scope of this definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the invention's goal of mimicking the human breast in general terms, such as being "textured and shaped to mimic the human breast" (’680 Patent, col. 3:65-col. 4:1), which could support a less rigid interpretation focused on overall appearance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a structural definition for "breast shape," stating it comprises "a teat projecting from a domed configuration that extends outwardly and downwardly to a widest circumferential edge of the collar" (’680 Patent, cl. 1). A party could argue that this phrase is not merely descriptive but is a limiting definition, requiring all of these specific geometric features to be present.
The Term: "areola portion"
Context and Importance: This term defines a specific region of the claimed nipple. Its boundaries relative to the "teat" and "base" are not explicitly dimensioned, making its interpretation important for determining the structure of the accused nipple. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's preferred embodiments describe this portion as having a "flex region" with grooves, a feature not explicitly required by Claim 1 but which may be used to inform the meaning of the term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 simply places the "areola portion" structurally "between the teat and the base" (’680 Patent, cl. 1), suggesting any intermediate region could satisfy the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly associates the "areola portion" with a functional purpose, stating it "includes a flex region 20 comprising ... flex channels" that allows the teat to move (’680 Patent, col. 3:1-5). A defendant might argue that to be an "areola portion" as contemplated by the patent, the structure must be capable of performing this flexing function, even if the claim does not explicitly recite the channels themselves.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Nutrits provides instruction manuals and other materials that "show how to assemble the Accused Products" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶55). It is also alleged that Nutrits promotes and advertises the infringing "breast-like nature" of the products to retailers and customers (Compl. ¶54).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that on August 10, 2023, twelve days before the patent issued, Plaintiff's counsel sent Defendant notice of the patent's impending issuance, its claims, and "claim charts detailing infringement" (Compl. ¶68). Continued infringing activity after this date is alleged to be willful (Compl. ¶¶ 77-78).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "breast shape"? Will the analysis be governed strictly by the claim's geometric definition of a "domed configuration" extending to the "widest circumferential edge of the collar," or will the broader, more subjective goal of "mimicking the human breast" influence the interpretation?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused product's multi-part assembly, as shown in its own instructions, map onto the claim's specific components? For example, does the accused product's "air vent" meet the precise structural and locational requirements of an element that "projects internally into the nipple interior below the teat," or is there a material difference in its design and placement?
- The case will also turn on the question of willfulness: given the allegation that Plaintiff provided pre-issuance notice with infringement contentions, a central factual dispute will be whether Defendant's actions after receiving this notice were objectively reckless, thereby justifying enhanced damages.