DCT

4:24-cv-00522

Contego Spa Designs, Inc. v. Malibu Nail Lounge

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00522, S.D. Tex., 05/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the corporate defendant resides in the district and has a regular and established place of business where it has committed acts of infringement. Venue is alleged to be proper for the individual defendants based on their residence in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' use of specific pedicure spa chairs in their nail salon infringes a patent related to a pedicure basin with overflow protection.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns pedicure spa chairs designed to improve sanitation by using disposable liners while mitigating the risk of water overflow that such liners can cause.
  • Key Procedural History: This document is Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit was assigned from the inventor to the Plaintiff, and the assignment was recorded at the USPTO. The complaint also alleges willful infringement based on knowledge obtained from the service of the original complaint in the case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-03-12 ’353 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-22 ’353 Patent Issue Date
2019-11-21 ’353 Patent assigned to Plaintiff
2024-05-29 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,289,353 - “PEDICURE BASIN WITH OVERFLOW PROTECTION”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,289,353, “PEDICURE BASIN WITH OVERFLOW PROTECTION,” issued March 22, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a sanitation problem in pedicure salons where residual bacteria can remain in basins after use. While disposable liners solve this, they typically block the basin's drain. This blockage creates a new problem: it prevents the convenient draining of water to adjust temperature and, more importantly, removes the primary overflow drain, risking spills if the basin is overfilled (’353 Patent, col. 1:21-31, 1:41-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a spa chair with a dual-basin system. A primary "main basin" for the patient's feet features a "peripheral rim" with at least one "lowered height portion." When a disposable liner is used and the water level rises too high, it spills over this lowered portion into a "secondary basin" designed to collect the overflow, preventing it from reaching the floor. The secondary basin may have its own drain (’353 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:21-30; Fig. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows salons to use sanitary disposable liners without sacrificing overflow protection, addressing a key operational and safety challenge in the industry (’353 Patent, col. 4:21-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A spa chair with a seat for a patient.
    • A main basin in front of the seat to receive the patient's feet.
    • The main basin having a peripheral rim for containing liquid.
    • The main basin having at least a portion of the peripheral rim arranged at a "lowered height relative to a prescribed height of the peripheral rim" to allow overflow.
    • A "liner covering a surface of the main basin up to the peripheral rim in an installed configuration."
    • A secondary basin "communicated with the main basin" over the lowered rim portion to collect the overflow.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Products are pedicure spas sold by T-Spa MFG., LLC and/or T-Spa Depot LLC under the model name "KYEN" and brand name "T-Spa" (Compl. ¶38).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the KYEN Accused Product is a spa chair used by Defendants to provide pedicure services (Compl. ¶39). The product is alleged to include a main basin with a peripheral rim that has a lowered portion, allowing liquid to overflow into a secondary basin (Compl. ¶40, ¶41). A photograph provided as Exhibit 4 in the complaint is described as showing this secondary basin communicated with the main basin (Compl. ¶41). The complaint further alleges that Defendants use the KYEN Accused Products with disposable liners inserted into the main basin during pedicure services (Compl. ¶43, ¶44). Exhibit 8 is described as a photograph showing the accused product being used with such a liner (Compl. ¶44).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,289,353 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a seat arranged for receiving the patient in seating position thereon with the feet presented forwardly of the seat; The KYEN Accused Product includes a seat for a spa patient. ¶40 col. 6:46-48
a main basin in front of the seat and arranged such that the feet of the patient sitting on the seat are received into the main basin; The KYEN Accused Product has a main basin in front of the seat for receiving the patient's feet. Exhibit 3 is described as a close-up view of this basin. ¶40 col. 6:49-52
the main basin having a peripheral rim for containing liquid in the main basin; The accused main basin has a peripheral rim to contain liquid. ¶40 col. 7:50-51
the main basin having at least a portion of the peripheral rim arranged at a lowered height relative to a prescribed height of the peripheral rim so that the liquid can overflow... The accused main basin has a portion of its peripheral rim at a lowered height relative to the remainder of the rim, which allows liquid to overflow. ¶40 col. 7:53-58
a liner covering a surface of the main basin up to the peripheral rim in an installed configuration; Defendants insert and use disposable liners in the main basin of the KYEN Accused Products when providing pedicures. Exhibit 8 is described as a photograph showing this use. ¶43, ¶44 col. 7:59-61
and a secondary basin communicated with the main basin over said at least a portion of the peripheral rim so as to collect all overflow of liquid... The KYEN Accused Product has a secondary basin positioned to collect overflow from the main basin via the lowered portion of the rim. Exhibit 4 is described as a photograph showing this feature. ¶41 col. 7:62-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "a lowered height relative to a prescribed height of the peripheral rim." The parties may dispute what constitutes the "prescribed height" and whether any variation in the rim's elevation on the accused product meets this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question concerns the "liner... in an installed configuration." Infringement of this claim appears to require a specific use of the accused chair with a liner. The complaint provides a photograph (Exhibit 8) as evidence of this use (Compl. ¶44), but the frequency and exact manner of this use by Defendants may be a point of factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a lowered height relative to a prescribed height of the peripheral rim"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the inventive concept, defining the overflow mechanism. The entire infringement theory hinges on whether the accused product's basin has a structure that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple manufacturing variance could constitute infringement, or if a specifically designed, distinct overflow channel is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "a portion of the peripheral rim," which may suggest that any part of the rim being lower than another part could suffice, without requiring a specific shape or structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 2A, depict a distinct, intentionally designed lowered section (230) separate from the main rim (240) (’353 Patent, Fig. 2A). A defendant could argue that the "lowered height" must be a purpose-built feature as shown in the embodiments, not just any incidental variation in height. The term "prescribed height" may suggest a standard, intended rim height from which the "lowered" portion deviates.

  • The Term: "a liner covering a surface of the main basin up to the peripheral rim in an installed configuration"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation makes the use of the spa chair with a liner, not just the chair itself, a required element of an infringing act. This is critical because the lawsuit is brought against end-users (a nail salon and its managers) rather than the manufacturer. The dispute will likely involve evidence of how the defendants actually operate the accused chairs.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions both flexible "plastic bag type" liners and "harder plastic" shell liners, suggesting the term is not limited to a specific type of liner (’353 Patent, col. 1:36-40). The complaint alleges use of "disposable liners" generally (Compl. ¶44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "in an installed configuration" could be interpreted to require that the liner is not merely placed in the basin, but is fitted in a way that fully enables the overflow function, such as conforming to the shape of the lowered rim (’353 Patent, col. 4:17-20).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against the corporate defendant (M Nails) and the individual manager defendants (Compl. ¶¶46, 59, 71, 83, 95). The basis for inducement is the allegation that these defendants instruct and encourage their employees and patrons to use the accused chairs with disposable liners, knowing this use constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶¶50-51, 63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the ’353 Patent obtained "at least as early as service of the original Complaint in this case" (Compl. ¶¶49, 62, 74, 86, 98). The allegation is that Defendants continued their infringing use of the products even after being made aware of the patent and the infringement allegations.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "a lowered height relative to a prescribed height," as described in the patent, be construed to read on the specific physical structure of the accused "KYEN" pedicure basin? The outcome may depend on whether the term requires a purpose-built overflow feature or if any variation in rim height suffices.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of infringing use: as Claim 1 requires "a liner... in an installed configuration," the case will turn on the plaintiff's ability to prove that the defendants consistently use the accused chairs with liners in a manner that satisfies all limitations of the asserted claim.
  • A third significant question will concern personal liability: the complaint names four individuals as defendants in their capacity as managers and owners. A central legal battle may involve whether the plaintiff can present sufficient evidence to hold these individuals personally liable for the alleged direct or induced infringement of the corporation.