DCT
3:23-cv-00364
Auguste v. Elementree Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Phil Auguste (Texas)
- Defendant: Elementree Inc., dba Clockwork (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Leavitt Eldredge Law Firm
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00364, N.D. Tex., 02/17/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business in the district, or alternatively, that it resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s robotic manicure machine infringes a patent related to an automatic manicure apparatus.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the automation of the personal grooming process of applying a manicure, a market that has seen recent innovation through robotics and machine vision.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit communication, including an initial notice of infringement from Plaintiff on February 7, 2022, a reply from Defendant on February 17, 2022, and subsequent correspondence. This history is presented to support the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-06-10 | ’810 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2020-01-28 | ’810 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-03-31 | Defendant's funding round to continue producing accused product |
| 2022-02-07 | Plaintiff provides first infringement notice to Defendant |
| 2022-02-17 | Defendant replies to first notice, disputing literal infringement |
| 2022-08-24 | Plaintiff provides second notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2022-12-07 | Defendant replies to second notice, disputing claims |
| 2023-02-02 | Plaintiff sends final infringement analysis to Defendant |
| 2023-02-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,542,810 - "Automatic manicure apparatus," issued January 28, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need in the prior art for a new tool capable of "quickly and efficiently manicuring fingernails" (’810 Patent, col. 1:39-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained apparatus that automates the manicure process. As described in the specification and depicted in the figures, it comprises a housing into which a user inserts their hands, a multi-axis "positioning unit" (40) composed of a system of tracks and motors (X, Y, and Z axes), and a "rotating tool unit" (60) that holds manicure implements like shavers, buffers, and printers. A camera (76) and a logic module (84) control the system to precisely apply the manicure to the user's fingernails (’810 Patent, col. 3:11-39; FIG. 7).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a complete, integrated system for mechanizing a traditionally manual and time-consuming cosmetic procedure.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶7).
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
- A housing with hand and window apertures.
- A "positioning unit" comprising a specific arrangement of a pair of Y tracks, a pair of Y motors, an X track, an X-Z motor, and a Z track.
- A "rotating tool unit" coupled to the positioning unit, which includes a rotator motor, a "plurality of manicure tools," and a camera "freely coupled" to remain oriented towards the bottom.
- A control panel and a logic module to operate the components.
- A power source.
- Independent Claim 11 requires a similar apparatus but adds further specificity, including:
- A tray aperture and channel in the housing.
- A "plurality of feet" on the housing.
- The plurality of manicure tools specified as "a shaver, a buffer, and a printer."
- A brush track, brush motor, and waste brush system.
- A slidable tray.
- A "plurality of heat lights."
- Control buttons specified as "a start button, a stop button, and a self-clean button."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "MiNiCURE" automatic manicure machine (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the MiNiCURE as a machine that provides “Manicures in minutes – done by a robot” (Compl. ¶10).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendant produces, sells, and leases these machines, which have been deployed in retail locations through a partnership with Target Corporation (Compl. ¶9, ¶11). The complaint notes a member of Plaintiff's firm used the service at a Dallas/Fort Worth location (Compl. ¶12).
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the internal operation or components of the MiNiCURE device, instead focusing on its function as an automated manicure provider.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused MiNiCURE product meets all the requirements of the asserted claims either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of accused features to claim limitations (Compl. ¶18, ¶28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the general allegations.
’810 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing, the housing having a front side... a right side defining an inner cavity, the front side having a pair of hand apertures... the top side having a pair of window apertures... | The MiNiCURE is an apparatus with a physical housing into which a user places their hands to receive a manicure. | ¶9, ¶10, ¶18 | col. 4:42-50 |
| a positioning unit coupled to the housing, the positioning unit comprising: a pair of Y tracks... a pair of Y motors... an X track... an X-Z motor... and a Z track... | The MiNiCURE is described as a "robot," which on information and belief contains a positioning system to perform the manicure process. | ¶10, ¶17, ¶18 | col. 4:51-64 |
| a rotating tool unit coupled to the positioning unit, the rotating tool unit comprising: a rotator motor... a plurality of manicure tools... and a camera... | On information and belief, the MiNiCURE robot uses a tool unit with manicure tools and a camera to apply nail polish. | ¶10, ¶17, ¶18 | col. 5:5-14 |
| a control panel coupled to the housing... the control panel having a plurality of control buttons; | On information and belief, the MiNiCURE has a user interface with controls to initiate and operate the machine. | ¶17, ¶18 | col. 5:15-19 |
| a logic module coupled to the control panel, the logic module being in operational communication with the pair of Y motors, the X-Z motor, the rotator motor, the camera... | On information and belief, the MiNiCURE contains a control system or logic module that coordinates the operation of its robotic components. | ¶17, ¶18 | col. 5:20-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the MiNiCURE machine actually contains the specific mechanical structure recited in the claims. The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused product's "positioning unit" is implemented with the claimed system of Y-tracks, X-track, Z-track, and associated motors, as opposed to another robotic mechanism, such as a multi-axis articulated arm.
- Scope Questions: The complaint's reliance on general allegations raises the question of whether Plaintiff can meet its pleading and, eventually, evidentiary burdens. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on discovery into the precise internal construction of the MiNiCURE product to determine if it falls within the scope of the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "positioning unit"
Context and Importance: This term is the mechanical heart of the invention. The claims define it as comprising a very specific Cartesian system of tracks and motors ("a pair of Y tracks," "an X track," "a Z track," etc.). The infringement case may depend on whether this term is construed to be limited to this exact track-based system or whether it can read on other types of robotic positioning systems.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "positioning unit" should be understood functionally as any mechanism that positions the tool head, with the listed tracks and motors being merely a preferred embodiment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself recites the specific track-and-motor components as part of the "positioning unit," not just as elements within a broader system. The patent's detailed description and figures exclusively depict this Cartesian track system, providing strong evidence that the invention is the specific apparatus shown and described, not any abstract robotic manicure system (’810 Patent, col. 3:11-29; FIG. 3-5).
The Term: "camera being freely coupled such that it remains oriented towards the bottom side of the housing at all times"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its specific functional requirement could create a clear point of non-infringement. The phrase "freely coupled" and the requirement to always be "oriented towards the bottom" suggests a passive, gravity-influenced coupling like a gimbal, rather than an actively controlled camera.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "freely coupled" means the camera is simply not fixed and can be oriented as needed, whether passively or actively.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states this exact limitation—"The camera 76 is freely coupled such that it remains oriented towards the bottom side 20 of the housing 12 at all times"—without describing any motors or active controls for the camera's orientation, which may suggest a passive mechanical design is required (’810 Patent, col. 3:40-43).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement (e.g., inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on Defendant's own acts of making, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused apparatus (Compl. ¶29).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a detailed allegation of willful infringement (Compl. ¶32). It asserts that Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’810 patent and its alleged infringement "since no later than February 17, 2022," the date of Defendant's counsel's reply to an initial notice letter (Compl. ¶22, ¶32). The pleading details a year-long history of correspondence regarding the alleged infringement to support the claim that infringement was deliberate (Compl. ¶21-25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can Plaintiff produce evidence from discovery demonstrating that the accused MiNiCURE product, described only functionally in the complaint as a "robot," contains the highly specific mechanical "positioning unit" (with its particular arrangement of X, Y, and Z tracks) and other structures recited in the patent's independent claims?
- The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: will the term "positioning unit" be limited to the Cartesian track-and-motor system explicitly claimed and described, or can it be construed more broadly to encompass other robotic positioning technologies that may be used in the accused product?
- Finally, assuming infringement is established, a key question for damages will be willfulness: do the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice and subsequent correspondence constitute the sort of egregious conduct that would warrant enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?