DCT

3:22-cv-00059

Ranir LLC v. Yesbrush LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00059, W.D. Wis., 02/04/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to PlayMonster because its principal place of business is in the Western District of Wisconsin. Venue as to YesBrush is alleged based on its commission of infringing acts and its regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "BriteBrush" line of children's toothbrushes infringes five patents related to illuminated, flashing toothbrushes with integrated timers.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of encouraging children to brush their teeth for dentist-recommended durations by incorporating engaging visual cues, such as flashing lights, activated by a user-friendly mechanism.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of infringement via letters dated June 16, 2021, and August 18, 2021. The first letter allegedly included claim charts outlining infringement of the ’244, ’473, and ’549 patents, which may be relevant to any subsequent claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-10 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2013-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,561,244 Issues
2015-07-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,084,473 Issues
2018-10-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,085,549 Issues
2021-06-16 Plaintiff sends initial notice letter to Defendants
2021-08-18 Plaintiff sends follow-up letter to Defendants
2021-08-31 U.S. Patent No. 11,103,059 Issues
2021-12-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,191,349 Issues
2022-02-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,561,244 - "Illuminated Flashing Toothbrush and Method of Use"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty in getting children to brush their teeth for the recommended two to three minutes due to short attention spans and viewing the activity as a chore (ʼ244 Patent, col. 1:28-35). It further notes that some existing toothbrushes with timer functions have activation mechanisms that are difficult for children to operate (ʼ244 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a toothbrush with an internal light and timing circuit that is activated by an improved, user-friendly mechanism. Specifically, it discloses a "pliant base" made of a flexible material that can be manipulated (e.g., squeezed or pushed) by a user. This manipulation causes an internal "protrusion" to contact a switch, completing the electrical circuit and activating the light for a set period of time, thereby encouraging longer brushing (ʼ244 Patent, col. 2:4-30; col. 7:40-51). Figure 15 illustrates a conical spring member (108) with a protrusion (112) that deflects to make contact when the pliant base is manipulated ('244 Patent, Fig. 15).
    • Technical Importance: The design focuses on simplifying the user interaction required to start the timer, making the feature more accessible to young children and thus more effective at promoting proper oral hygiene habits.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts claims 1–2, 4, 6, 8–9, 11–13, 15, and 17, with Claim 1 being independent (Compl. ¶26).
    • Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
      • A handle with an interior cavity made of a flexible material.
      • A head coupled to the handle with bristles.
      • A power source within the cavity.
      • A light generation mechanism within the cavity, which itself comprises:
        • one or more elongate members;
        • a light;
        • a circuit; and
        • a switch with a protrusion extending towards the flexible material, where the flexible material covers the protrusion.
    • The complaint also asserts dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,084,473 - "Illuminated Flashing Toothbrush and Method of Use"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’473 Patent addresses the need for a device that encourages children to brush their teeth more often and for longer periods by making the experience more engaging ('473 Patent, col. 1:30-41).
    • The Patented Solution: The '473 Patent, which shares a specification with the '244 Patent, describes a toothbrush with an internal illumination circuit. The claims focus on a specific structural arrangement where an "elongated member" is positioned between the light source and the end of the handle. When a force is applied to this member (e.g., by pressing on a flexible part of the handle), it causes the member to "engage with a switch," which completes a circuit to activate the light ('473 Patent, Claim 1). The specification describes various front-mounted buttons and switches as alternative activation mechanisms ('473 Patent, col. 8:35-43).
    • Technical Importance: This patent claims a particular internal configuration for translating user input into the activation of an electronic timer, aiming for a reliable and child-friendly design.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts claims 1–2 and 4–5, with Claim 1 being independent (Compl. ¶34).
    • Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
      • A handle with a first end, a second end, an interior chamber, and an activation mechanism made of flexible material.
      • A head positioned at the first end of the handle.
      • A light positioned in the interior chamber.
      • A power source positioned in the interior chamber.
      • An elongated member coupled to the activation mechanism and positioned between the light and the second end of the handle.
      • The elongated member is configured such that a force applied to its first end causes its second end to engage with a switch.
      • A circuit that provides power to the light upon the switch being engaged.
    • The complaint also asserts dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,085,549 - "Illuminated Flashing Toothbrush and Method of Use"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’244 and ’473 patents, also discloses an illuminated toothbrush designed to encourage longer brushing. The invention centers on a handle with an internal cavity housing a light, power source, and a switch mechanism activated by manipulating a "pliant base" made of a flexible material different from the handle material ('549 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-21).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 14 and 19, along with dependent claims 15, 17, and 20 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the entire line of BriteBrush toothbrushes infringes this patent (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 11,103,059 - "Illuminated Flashing Toothbrush and Method of Use"

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same inventive theme, the ’059 Patent describes a toothbrush with an internal illumination circuit activated by a user-friendly mechanism. The claims again focus on the combination of a handle with an interior cavity, a flexible activation mechanism, a power source, a light, a switch, and an "elongated member" that translates force to the switch ('059 Patent, Claim 8).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 14 and 19, along with dependent claims 15, 17, and 20 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the BriteBrush toothbrushes of infringement (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 11,191,349 - "Illuminated Flashing Toothbrush and Method of Use"

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’349 Patent describes similar technology, with claims directed to a "light generation mechanism" that is fully assembled before being inserted into the toothbrush handle's cavity. The mechanism includes one or more "elongate members," a light, a circuit, and a switch activated by a protrusion that is moved when a flexible part of the handle is manipulated ('349 Patent, Claim 14).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, and 24, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The BriteBrush toothbrushes are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "BriteBrush toothbrushes," which include the Baby Shark toothbrush, the Sesame Street Elmo toothbrush, and the Game Brush toothbrush (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are toothbrushes that Defendants import, offer for sale, and sell throughout the United States (Compl. ¶¶12-13). It states that Defendants market and sell these products through major physical and online retailers such as Target, Amazon, and Walmart (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation or internal components of the accused toothbrushes.
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that preliminary and exemplary claim charts detailing infringement of the patents-in-suit were attached as Exhibits G, H, I, J, and K (Compl. ¶¶27, 35, 43, 50, 57). However, these exhibits were not provided. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that Defendants' BriteBrush toothbrushes infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the products in the United States (Compl. ¶¶26, 34, 42, 49, 56). The lack of specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features prevents a detailed technical analysis of the infringement claims at this stage.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may involve the scope of the term "elongated member" as used across the patents. The question for the court will be whether this term, as described and claimed, can be construed to read on the internal components of the accused BriteBrush products, the structure of which is not detailed in the complaint.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the BriteBrush toothbrushes are activated. A key factual question will be whether their activation mechanism functions by means of a "protrusion" covered by a "flexible material" that moves to complete a circuit, as required by claims in the '244 patent family, or if they operate via a fundamentally different technical principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "light generation mechanism" (from '244 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 of the '244 patent as a composite of several other elements (elongate members, light, circuit, switch). Its construction is critical because it defines the entire infringing sub-assembly. A broad construction could capture a wide variety of internal electronic modules, while a narrow one could limit the claim to the specific arrangement shown in the patent's figures.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a definition by listing its required components, suggesting the term encompasses any structure meeting those sub-limitations ('244 Patent, col. 14:52-65). The specification also refers to the components generally as an "illumination circuit 14" ('244 Patent, col. 5:2-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description of a preferred embodiment shows a specific mechanical arrangement involving a conical spring and contact plates ('244 Patent, col. 7:5-51; Fig. 15). A defendant may argue that this detailed disclosure limits the scope of the broader term "light generation mechanism" to this or a similar structure.

  • The Term: "elongated member" (from '473 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is the key structural component that allegedly translates a user's action on the "activation mechanism" into the "engag[ing]" of a "switch." Proving infringement of Claim 1 of the '473 patent will require identifying a corresponding structure in the accused product. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a variety of internal actuators or levers fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is structurally simple. The specification shows it as an "extension member 120," which is depicted as a simple rod ('473 Patent, col. 5:55-57; Fig. 15). Plaintiff may argue that any rod-like or extended structure that performs the claimed function meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "one or more generally rigid elongate members 107" that engage with power sources ('473 Patent, col. 5:65-67). A defendant could argue that the term requires a degree of rigidity and a structure distinct from the circuit or switch itself, potentially excluding more integrated or flexible designs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants supply the BriteBrush products to retailers like Amazon, Walmart, and Target, and advertise and promote their sale to consumers, with the knowledge and intent that these acts will cause infringement by end-users and retailers (Compl. ¶¶15, 28, 36, 44, 51, 58).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It explicitly cites a notice letter sent on June 16, 2021, which allegedly included claim charts for the '244, '473, and '549 patents, and a follow-up letter on August 18, 2021. The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement continued without a reasonable basis despite this notice (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 30-31, 38-39).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: can key terms like "light generation mechanism" and "elongated member," which are described in the context of specific mechanical switch assemblies, be construed broadly enough to cover the potentially different internal electronic architecture of the accused BriteBrush products?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: once the internal structure of the BriteBrush is revealed in discovery, does it contain the specific combination of a flexible activation surface, a movable member, and a switch that it engages, as required by the asserted claims, or does it achieve a similar result through a non-infringing design?
  • A further question will concern willfulness: given the allegation that Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice with claim charts, the court will have to examine the timeline and substance of the parties' communications to determine whether Defendants' continued alleged infringement was objectively reckless.