DCT
8:26-cv-02964
Conair LLC v. Tre Milano LLC
Key Events
Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Conair LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Tre Milano, LLC d/b/a Instyler (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Vitale, Vickrey, Niro, Solon & Gasey LLP; The Kneafsey Firm, Inc.
- Case Identification: 8:26-cv-02964, C.D. Cal., 10/08/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant, Tre Milano, resides in the judicial district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s InStyler Tulip Auto Curler products infringe patents related to automated hair styling aids.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated hair curling devices that draw in a strand of hair and wrap it around a heated element to create curls, aiming to simplify the process and reduce hair damage compared to manual curling irons.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Conair asserts it is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit pursuant to a Patent License Agreement with TF3 Limited, dated June 3, 2011, which allegedly grants Conair all substantial rights to the patents, including the right to sue for infringement in its own name.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-12-17 | Priority Date for ’196 and ’719 Patents |
| 2011-06-03 | Conair enters Patent License Agreement with TF3 Limited |
| 2019-03-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10,238,196 Issues |
| 2022-06-07 | U.S. Patent No. 11,350,719 Issues |
| 2026-10-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,350,719, “Hair Styling Aid,” issued June 7, 2022 ’719 Patent
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes traditional hair curling methods as time-consuming and potentially damaging due to the clamping and twisting of hair, especially with prolonged heat application Compl. ¶3
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a hair styling aid that simplifies the curling process by automatically winding a strand of hair around a heated elongate member Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶¶27-28 The device features a housing with a guide slot to receive the hair, and a rotatable element inside that wraps the hair around the heated member to form a curl Compl. ¶30 ’719 Patent, col. 1:57-67 The static nature of the guide relative to the rotating element is what causes the hair to be wrapped Compl. ¶28
- Technical Importance: This automated approach was designed to make the styling process faster, more consistent, and less damaging than manual methods Compl. ¶4
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 and 7-10 Compl. ¶38
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’719 Patent includes these essential elements:
- a housing;
- guide means comprising a slot in a wall of the housing for receiving a length of hair;
- a rotatable element, selectively rotatable in either direction;
- a heated elongate member around which hair is wound by the rotatable element;
- a chamber formed between the housing wall(s) and the elongate member;
- the housing being integral with a handle;
- the rotatable element being rotatable relative to the elongate member;
- the rotatable element having a predefined rotational starting position and being automatically rotated to return to that position after use;
- the housing having a longitudinal axis with the slot being parallel to it.
U.S. Patent No. 10,238,196, “Hair Styling Aid,” issued March 26, 2019 ’196 Patent
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’719 Patent, the '196 Patent addresses the shortcomings of conventional curling irons, which are described as potentially damaging and inefficient for styling an entire head of hair Compl. ¶3
- The Patented Solution: The ’196 Patent describes a similar automated hair curler with a handle, a housing containing a chamber, a guide slot for hair, an internal elongate member, and a rotatable element Compl. ¶36 This patent specifically claims a motor for driving the rotation and, critically, "two hair-pushing surfaces" on the rotatable element, one oriented for clockwise rotation and the other for anticlockwise rotation, to wind the hair ’196 Patent, col. 12:55-13:14
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a motorized, bi-directional curling mechanism with specific surfaces designed to engage and push the hair, automating the winding process in either direction Compl. ¶¶61-62
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-21 Compl. ¶56
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’196 Patent includes these essential elements:
- a handle and a housing connected to the handle;
- the housing having a chamber and a guide (a slot in the wall);
- an elongate member at least partially in the housing;
- a rotatable element in the housing, rotatable in clockwise and anticlockwise directions to wind hair around the elongate member;
- a motor for rotating the rotatable element;
- at least one heating element for the chamber;
- wherein the rotatable element has two hair-pushing surfaces, one oriented for pushing hair when rotated clockwise and the other oriented for pushing hair when rotated anticlockwise.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the "InStyler Tulip Auto Curler" products Compl. ¶6
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the InStyler Tulip Auto Curler is an automatic hair curler that functions similarly to the patented invention Compl. ¶7 An image of the product's packaging claims it can create "PERFECT CURLS & WAVES" and "CURLS IN 3 SECONDS!" Compl. p. 3
- Functionally, the product is alleged to have a housing, a guide slot for receiving hair, an internal heated barrel (elongate member), and a motorized rotating element that winds the hair around the barrel (Compl. ¶¶39-42; Compl. ¶¶57-61). The complaint includes several annotated images to illustrate this functionality. For example, an annotated image shows the product's "guide means" and "slot in wall for receiving hair" Compl. ¶40 Another image illustrates the "rotatable element" and its bi-directional rotation capability, allegedly controlled by selectable buttons Compl. ¶41 Compl. ¶61 Defendant promotes and sells these products in the U.S. via a website Compl. ¶18
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’719 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing; | The accused product includes a body that encloses the curling mechanism, identified as "a housing." A visual of the product with this part labeled is provided. | ¶39 | col. 4:39-41 |
| guide means comprising a slot in a wall of the housing for receiving a length of hair to be styled; | The product includes an opening identified as "A guide means" and "A slot in wall for receiving hair" through which hair is inserted. | ¶40 | col. 4:56-62 |
| a rotatable element, rotatable relative to the housing and to the slot, the rotatable element being selectively rotatable in either direction... | The product contains an internal rotating component, allegedly controlled by two directional buttons, that allows for clockwise or anticlockwise rotation relative to the housing and slot. | ¶41 | col. 5:3-11 |
| an elongate member around which use, the length of hair is wound by the rotatable element, the elongate member being heated; | The product includes a heated barrel, identified as the "elongate member," around which the rotatable element winds hair. | ¶42 | col. 5:36-40 |
| the housing surrounding a part of the elongate member such that a chamber is formed between the housing wall(s) and the elongate member; | An internal space between the outer housing and the inner elongate member is identified as "a chamber." An annotated close-up visual is provided. | ¶43 | col. 4:41-45 |
| wherein the rotatable element has a predefined rotational starting position and is rotated automatically to return to the predefined rotational starting position after use; | The complaint alleges the product has a predefined starting position for wrapping hair and that the rotatable element will "always be positioned" to wrap hair when a directional button is selected. An annotated image depicts this feature. | ¶46 | col. 3:24-30 |
| the housing having a longitudinal axis and the slot being parallel with the longitudinal axis of the housing. | The complaint provides an annotated image asserting that the product's slot is parallel to the longitudinal axis of its housing. | ¶47 | col. 4:57-59 |
’196 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handle and a housing connected to the handle... | The product is shown to have a handle and a connected housing that contains the curling mechanism. | ¶57 | col. 4:40-41 |
| a chamber in which a length of hair is received and retained for styling; | The complaint identifies an internal space as "a chamber in which the hair is received." A close-up annotated image is provided to show this feature. | ¶58 | col. 4:41-45 |
| a guide for receiving the length of hair to be styled, the guide being provided by a slot in a wall of the housing... | The product includes an opening identified as "A guide" and "A slot in wall for receiving hair" for admitting hair into the device. | ¶59 | col. 4:56-62 |
| a rotatable element in the housing and adjacent to the elongate member, the rotatable element being rotatable in a clockwise direction and in an anticlockwise direction... winding the length of hair around the elongate member... | The complaint alleges the product has a bi-directionally rotatable element, controlled by directional buttons, that winds hair around the elongate member. An annotated image shows the element adjacent to the elongate member. | ¶61 | col. 5:3-6; col. 5:21-23 |
| a motor for rotating the rotatable element... | The complaint asserts the product contains an electric motor in the handle, powered by a cable, that causes the rotatable element to spin. An annotated image points to the "Motor located in the handle." | ¶62 | col. 5:12-14 |
| wherein the rotatable element has: two hair-pushing surfaces, one... oriented for pushing hair around the elongate member when... rotated clockwise and the other... oriented for pushing hair... when... rotated anticlockwise... | The complaint alleges the product has "3 rotation settings - you control the direction," but does not explicitly identify the structure of the "two hair-pushing surfaces" or explain how they are oriented for bi-directional pushing. | ¶64 | col. 5:27-28; col. 13:8-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope and Functional Questions (’719 Patent): The claim requires the rotatable element to "automatically" return to a "predefined rotational starting position after use." The complaint alleges the element will "always be positioned" to wrap hair Compl. ¶46 This raises the evidentiary question of whether the accused device actually performs this specific automated reset function, or if it simply stops in a position determined by the user's release of a button.
- Technical and Structural Questions ’196 Patent: Claim 1 requires "two hair-pushing surfaces," with one "oriented for pushing hair" clockwise and the other oriented for pushing hair anticlockwise. The complaint’s allegations for this element are conclusory, pointing to "3 rotation settings" Compl. ¶64 This raises a key technical question: does the accused product's rotatable element possess the specific dual-surface structure recited in the claim, or does it achieve bi-directional rotation through a different mechanism? The analysis will depend on the physical construction of the accused device’s rotatable element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’196 Patent:
- The Term: "two hair-pushing surfaces"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central structural feature distinguishing Claim 1 of the ’196 Patent. The definition is critical because infringement will depend on whether the accused product's rotatable element is found to possess this specific dual-surface structure for bi-directional winding. Practitioners may focus on this term as it appears to be a primary point of novelty.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function generally, stating the rotatable element has surfaces "oriented for pushing hair around the elongate member" in both directions ’196 Patent, col. 13:8-14 This could support an argument that any structure achieving this function meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific embodiment where the "hair-pushing surfaces" are provided by "edges of the disc adjacent to the cut-out sector" ’196 Patent, col. 13:18-21 An argument could be made that the term should be limited to this disclosed disc-and-cutout structure.
For the ’719 Patent:
- The Term: "rotated automatically to return to the predefined rotational starting position after use"
- Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific automated behavior. Its construction will be central to determining whether the accused product's operation meets the claim. The dispute may hinge on whether "automatically" requires a "reset function" independent of user control after the curling operation is complete.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a specific, narrow definition of this process. An argument could be made that any non-manual return to a starting orientation for the next use, even if part of the user-initiated stop sequence, satisfies the claim. The patent notes the device may be "arranged to only operate in full rotations" ’719 Patent, col. 3:29-31, which could imply an automatic completion of a cycle.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses a "reset function" that could be incorporated, which "could be coupled to the opening of the door in the housing" ’719 Patent, col. 3:32-34 This suggests a distinct, automated event triggered after use, supporting a narrower interpretation that requires more than just stopping at a default position.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include specific counts for indirect infringement (induced or contributory). The allegations focus on direct infringement by making, using, selling, and offering to sell the accused products Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶56
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant's infringement was "deliberate, intentional, and willful... after having knowledge of the '719 Patent" Compl. ¶53 and "after having knowledge of the '196 Patent" Compl. ¶70 The complaint also states that Plaintiff has complied with patent marking provisions and/or placed Defendant on actual notice Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶72
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a direct confrontation between a patent holder in the automated hair-styling space and a competitor with a product of similar functionality. The litigation will likely focus on the specific technical implementation of the accused product compared to the patent claims.
- A central question will be one of structural equivalence: Does the rotatable mechanism in the InStyler Tulip Auto Curler contain the specific "two hair-pushing surfaces," one oriented for clockwise and one for anticlockwise rotation, as explicitly recited in claim 1 of the ’196 Patent, or does it achieve bi-directional winding through a different mechanical design?
- A second key issue will be one of automated functionality: Does the accused device perform the "automatic return to the predefined rotational starting position after use" as required by claim 1 of the ’719 Patent? The case may turn on the evidence presented to prove or disprove the existence of this specific, automated reset behavior versus a user-controlled stop.
- A third question relates to standing: While the complaint asserts that Conair has all substantial rights to sue under an exclusive license Compl. ¶¶11-14, defendants in such cases often challenge the plaintiff’s standing, which may require an examination of the license agreement to confirm that sufficient rights were transferred.
Analysis metadata