Magvon LLC v. Dolan

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Magvon LLC (New Jersey)
  • Defendant: Roxann Dolan (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cozen O'Connor
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-01453, D.N.J., 02/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because the events giving rise to the action, namely Defendant’s infringement accusations against a New Jersey-based corporation whose products are sold in the state, occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff *Magvon LLC v. Dolan* seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Scrubzz" brand disposable wipes do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,716,738, owned by Defendant Roxann Dolan, following threats of legal action from the Defendant.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on disposable, soap-infused washcloths, a consumer product category that combines the hygiene of single-use items with the cleaning functionality of traditional washcloths.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in response to a series of communications in February 2026, wherein Defendant Dolan allegedly contacted Magvon by phone, email, and text, accusing Magvon's products of infringement and indicating an intent to litigate. This sequence of events is presented as the basis for an actual controversy warranting a declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,716,738 - "Soap Infused Disposable Washcloth Device and Method" (issued July 21, 2020)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes limitations of conventional washing products. It notes that reusable washcloths can harbor bacteria and lead to overuse of soap, while existing disposable towels are often paper-based, non-abrasive, and poor at holding soap ’738 Patent, col. 1:39-53
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a disposable washcloth system featuring individual washcloths pre-infused with a dry, water-activatable soap ’738 Patent, col. 2:21-23 A key feature of the claimed system is its configuration: multiple washcloths are "connected in a linear fashion to each other" such that a user can remove one or more from a "roll" ’738 Patent, claim 1 The washcloths may have two different surfaces, such as a soft microfiber side and an abrasive scrubbing side ’738 Patent, col. 2:15-17
• Technical Importance: The claimed configuration aims to provide a hygienic, convenient, and pre-portioned washing solution that combines the benefits of a durable cloth, soap, and a disposable format, particularly for settings like hospitals, gyms, or travel where cleanliness and convenience are paramount ’738 Patent, col. 1:43-46

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement concerning all claims of the patent Compl. ¶18 The patent contains two independent claims, 1 and 15.

• Independent Claim 1:

  • A soap infused washcloth system comprising at least two soap infused washcloth devices.
  • Each device has a body with a first side and a different second side, forming a rectangle when laid flat.
  • The body is absorbent and impregnatable with soap.
  • The devices are "connected in a linear fashion to each other."
  • This connection allows a user to "remove one or more of the at least two soap infused washcloth devices from a roll."

• Independent Claim 15:

  • Builds upon the system of Claim 1, specifying the first material is microfiber and the second is an abrasive scrubbing material.
  • Requires that the "roll is contained within a box."
  • Specifies the soap is a "dry-soap" contained within "water-soluble capsules."
  • Requires the devices are "connected in a linear fashion" and removable "from a roll."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are disposable wipes sold by Magvon under the "Scrubzz" brand, including products marketed as "Bathing Wipes" and "Bath Sponges" Compl. ¶¶7, 9

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint states that the Scrubzz Products are sold through an Amazon storefront Compl. ¶8 The central feature relevant to the non-infringement allegation is their packaging format. According to the complaint, the "wipes are stacked in a package" rather than being connected or wound into a roll Compl. ¶10 The complaint includes promotional images showing stacks of individual "Disposable sponges" and wipes in flat-pack style packaging Compl. p. 4

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Magvon's complaint for declaratory judgment is premised on a single, clear argument: its products lack a key limitation required by all claims of the ’738 Patent. Specifically, Magvon alleges its products are not "connected in a linear fashion" and are not arranged "in a roll configuration" Compl. ¶¶17-18 The complaint provides product images that depict stacked, individual wipes in packages, not a continuous roll of connected wipes Compl. p. 4

’738 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Definitional Question: The dispute centers on the construction of the claim terms "connected in a linear fashion" and "from a roll." A primary question for the court will be whether these terms require a direct physical connection (e.g., via perforations) between adjacent washcloths dispensed from a cylindrical core, or if they could be interpreted more broadly.
  • Factual Question: The complaint presents the accused products as being discrete, stacked items. A factual question for the court will be to confirm the physical configuration of the Scrubzz Products and determine if they possess any feature that could be construed as a "connection" or a "roll."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "connected in a linear fashion to each other"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the dispositive limitation for the non-infringement argument. Magvon’s position is that its stacked, individual wipes are not "connected" in any way Compl. ¶18 The patent holder would need to argue for a construction of "connected" that does not require direct physical attachment to prevail.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term "connected." A party might argue that being arranged sequentially in a dispenser for linear removal constitutes a functional connection, though this position may find limited support in the specification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a physical connection by describing a "tear-off" capability, which implies a pre-existing attachment like a perforation ’738 Patent, col. 4:37-38 The consistent use of the term "roll" throughout the patent further supports an interpretation requiring physically linked items that can be unwound ’738 Patent, claim 1 '738 Patent, claim 4 '738 Patent, claim 15

• The Term: "from a roll"

• Context and Importance: This term works in conjunction with "connected" to define the product's dispensing configuration. Magvon contends its stacked products do not constitute a "roll" Compl. ¶17

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "roll." The patent holder could argue the term functionally describes any bulk supply of wipes, regardless of whether it is cylindrically wound.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "roll" implies a product format where a continuous or semi-continuous sheet is wound upon itself or a core. The specification repeatedly uses this term without any indication of a special or broader definition, suggesting reliance on its conventional meaning ’738 Patent, col. 2:31; '738 Patent, col. 4:39

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement.

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

The resolution of this case appears to depend on the answers to two primary questions:

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: Will the court interpret the phrase "connected in a linear fashion ... from a roll," as used in the ’738 patent, to require a physical linkage between adjacent washcloths (such as perforations) that are dispensed from a cylindrically wound supply? Or is there a basis in the patent's intrinsic evidence for a broader definition that could encompass sequentially stacked, individual items?

2. A secondary issue may be one of doctrine of equivalents: If the court determines there is no literal infringement, the patent holder would need to demonstrate that a stack of individual wipes performs substantially the same function (dispensing washcloths), in substantially the same way (one at a time), to achieve the same result (a fresh washcloth) as the claimed roll. The stark difference between a physically connected roll and a stack of discrete items may present a significant hurdle for such an argument.