DCT

3:26-cv-01679

Mary Kay Inc v. Aidkorea Co Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:26-cv-01679, N.D. Tex., 05/22/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's purposeful business activities directed at Texas, including sales of the accused products through its websites and social media channels. As a foreign entity not resident in the United States, Defendant may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Mary & May" brand cosmetics and beauty products infringe its "MARY KAY" trademarks and that Defendant's "Vegan Calendula Peptide Ageless Sleeping Mask" infringes a patent related to anti-aging skin care formulations.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves cosmetic chemistry, specifically topical formulations designed to firm skin and reduce the appearance of wrinkles for overnight use.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges that it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patent-in-suit on May 15, 2026, seven days before filing the complaint. This allegation may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-08-28 '082 Patent Priority Date
2014-11-25 '082 Patent Issue Date
2021-01-01 Approximate date of Defendant's "Mary & May" trademark registration (year only provided)
2024-09-06 Date of consumer inquiry to Mary Kay regarding a "Mary & May" product
2026-05-15 Date Defendant allegedly knew of the '082 Patent
2026-05-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,895,082 - "Skin Care Formulations"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section explains that skin aging and environmental exposure lead to undesirable visual changes like wrinkles and loss of elasticity. It notes that many existing products focus on a single issue or are designed for daytime use, when the skin is primarily defending against environmental assaults rather than recuperating. '082 Patent, col. 1:29-57
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method for treating skin by topically applying a composition designed to work in sync with the skin's nighttime recovery rhythms. The core of the invention is a composition containing a specific peptide (palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7) and a specific dermatological vehicle, which together are claimed to firm skin and reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles. '082 Patent, abstract '082 Patent, col. 2:3-15 The patent specifies that the composition is not a sunless tanning product, distinguishing it from other cosmetic formulations. '082 Patent, abstract
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides for a multi-benefit, targeted nighttime treatment that combines specific active ingredients to synergistically aid the skin's natural repair processes during sleep. '082 Patent, col. 2:3-9

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the '082 Patent Compl. ¶188
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A method of firming skin or reducing the appearance of fine lines or wrinkles comprising topically applying, to skin in need thereof, a composition comprising:
    • (a) palmitoyl tetrapeptide 7; and
    • (b) a dermatologically acceptable vehicle comprising: (i) water; (ii) glycerin; (iii) butylene glycol; (iv) propylene glycol; and (v) a chelating agent,
    • wherein topical application of the composition to the skin firms the skin or reduces the appearance of fine lines or wrinkles, and
    • wherein the composition is not a sunless tanning composition.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one or more of the claims" Compl. ¶61, which implicitly reserves the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Mary&May Vegan Calendula Peptide Ageless Sleeping Mask" (the "Accused Product") Compl. ¶61

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Product is a topical gel mask intended for overnight use Compl. ¶67 The complaint alleges, based on the product's ingredient list, that the formulation contains palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7, water, glycerin, butylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, and sodium phytate Compl. ¶62 An image from the product's webpage shows the ingredient list. Compl. p. 24
  • The product is marketed for its anti-aging benefits, with claims that it "will restore damaged skin overnight," "prevent aging," and "induce collagen synthesis" Compl. ¶67 Compl. ¶68 The complaint includes a screenshot of the product's marketing page highlighting these "key selling points." Compl. p. 26 The complaint also asserts that the product is not advertised or formulated as a sunless tanning composition Compl. ¶66

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'082 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of firming skin or reducing the appearance of fine lines or wrinkles comprising topically applying, to skin in need thereof, a composition comprising: Defendant instructs its customers to apply the Accused Product to their skin as an overnight mask to "restore damaged skin" and achieve "anti-aging effects." ¶¶67-69 col. 2:3-6
(a) palmitoyl tetrapeptide 7; and The Accused Product's ingredient list explicitly includes "palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7." ¶62 col. 6:56-60
(b) a dermatologically acceptable vehicle comprising: (i) water; The Accused Product's ingredient list begins with "Purified water." ¶62 col. 6:40-41
(ii) glycerin; The Accused Product's ingredient list includes "glycerin." ¶62 col. 6:41-42
(iii) butylene glycol; The Accused Product's ingredient list includes "butylene glycol." ¶62 col. 6:42-43
(iv) propylene glycol; and The Accused Product's ingredient list includes "dipropylene glycol." The complaint alleges this is "insubstantially different from propylene glycol." ¶¶62; ¶195 col. 6:43-44
(v) a chelating agent, The Accused Product's ingredient list includes "sodium phytate," which the complaint alleges is a chelating agent. ¶¶62; ¶63 col. 5:22-24
wherein topical application of the composition to the skin firms the skin or reduces the appearance of fine lines or wrinkles, and Defendant markets the Accused Product as preventing aging, inducing collagen synthesis, and plumping skin. ¶193 col. 2:25-30
wherein the composition is not a sunless tanning composition. The complaint alleges the Accused Product is not a sunless tanning composition and is not advertised as such. ¶¶66; ¶194 col. 2:29-30
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute will concern the claim limitation "propylene glycol." The complaint alleges the accused product contains "dipropylene glycol" and asserts this is "insubstantially different," setting up an argument under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶195 The defense may argue that the claim term is precise and does not literally cover dipropylene glycol, and that the two are not equivalent.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on "sodium phytate" qualifying as "a chelating agent" under the claim Compl. ¶63 The case may raise the question of whether sodium phytate performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the chelating agents contemplated by the patent, such as the disclosed example of disodium EDTA '082 Patent, col. 7:20

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "propylene glycol"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because its interpretation will determine whether the "dipropylene glycol" in the Accused Product meets this claim limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 hinges on this construction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that in the context of a cosmetic vehicle, the patent uses "propylene glycol" as an exemplary humectant or moisturizing agent, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand related glycols to be interchangeable for this purpose. The specification lists it as one component of a "dermatologically acceptable vehicle" without further elaboration on its specific structural necessity. '082 Patent, col. 6:43-44
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the claim recites the chemical "propylene glycol" with specificity. The patentee chose to list this specific glycol rather than a broader genus like "a glycol." This explicit recitation suggests an intent to limit the claim to that specific compound, thereby excluding "dipropylene glycol" from the literal scope.

  • The Term: "a chelating agent"

    • Context and Importance: The complaint's infringement allegation relies on the Accused Product's "sodium phytate" being a chelating agent. The construction of this functional term will be necessary to determine if this element is met.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the open-ended term "a chelating agent" without further definition, suggesting any compound that performs this function in the composition would suffice. The specification provides "disodium EDTA" as an example of a chelating agent but does not state that the claims are limited to this example. '082 Patent, col. 6:44
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent does not define it. A defendant could argue that the term should be construed in light of the provided example (disodium EDTA) and be limited to synthetic aminopolycarboxylic acids used for stabilizing cosmetic formulations, potentially excluding plant-derived agents like sodium phytate if it functions differently.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) Compl. ¶¶190-191 The factual basis includes allegations that Defendant instructs its customers to topically apply the Accused Product overnight for anti-aging purposes, thereby performing the steps of the claimed method Compl. ¶69 The complaint provides a screenshot of the "HOW TO USE & TIPS" section from Defendant's website as evidence of these instructions. Compl. p. 27
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the '082 Patent as of May 15, 2026, prior to the filing of the suit Compl. ¶60 Compl. ¶196 This alleged pre-suit knowledge, if proven, could support a finding of willful infringement and potential eligibility for enhanced damages.

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

  • A core issue will be one of chemical equivalence: Does the claim term "propylene glycol" read on the accused product's "dipropylene glycol"? The case will likely require a detailed analysis under the doctrine of equivalents, focusing on whether the two compounds perform the same function (e.g., as a humectant) in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result within the claimed formulation.

  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Is "sodium phytate", a plant-derived ingredient, considered "a chelating agent" within the meaning of Claim 1, particularly when the patent's specification provides the synthetic compound disodium EDTA as its primary example?

  • An evidentiary question for the inducement claim will be one of specific intent: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant, by marketing its product for general "anti-aging" benefits, specifically intended to encourage its customers to practice each and every element of the patented method, including the use of a composition containing the specific vehicle components recited in the claim?

Loading Complaint