UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

The Bottle Crew L.L.C.,

 Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

Beauty Union Global Ltd., 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, The Bottle Crew L.L.C., for its Complaint against Defendant, 

Beauty Union Global Ltd. states and alleges as follows: 

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, The Bottle Crew L.L.C. (“TBC”), is a Michigan limited 

liability company with its principal place of business located at 7001 Orchard 

Lake Rd., Ste. 410, West Bloomfield, MI 48322. TBC sells bottles, closures and 

sprayers through various retailers in the United States. 

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Beauty Union Global Ltd. 

(“BUG”) is a Chinese company with its principal place of business at Unit B, 19/F, 

Federal Center, 77 Sheung on Street, Chai Wan, Hong Kong. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of 

United States Patent No. 8,079,388 (the “ ‘388 Patent”) arising under the patent 

5:15-cv-10028-JEL-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1
2 

laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 

action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202. 

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over BUG based on its sales of 

products in the State of Michigan. Upon information and belief, BUG sells its 

Travalo® refillable perfume spray through national retailers located in Michigan, 

including Kohls, Bed Bath & Beyond and Fragrance Outlet (See

www.travalo.com). 

 5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

 6. An actual and justiciable controversy exists as between TBC and BUG 

regarding infringement of the ‘388 patent. 

BACKGROUND

7. TBC sells a product called the iGo Travel Atomizer. 

8. TBC does not manufacture the iGo Atomizer. 

9. TBC purchases the iGo Atomizer directly from a factory in China. 

10. TBC did not provide any specifications or instructions to the factory in 

China with respect to the design of the iGo Atomizer. 

11. Upon information and belief, BUG is the owner by assignment of the 

‘388 patent, which is entitled “Refill Perfume Bottle.” The ‘388 patent was issued 

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on December 20, 

2011. A true and correct copy of the‘388 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 

5:15-cv-10028-JEL-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 2
3 

12. According to USPTO assignment records, the named inventor 

assigned the application for the ‘388 patent to Beauty Union on May 20, 2010. 

13. The ‘388 patent has only one independent claim, which is reproduced 

below: 

 “1. A portable refillable non compressible liquid dispenser adapted to 

receive non-compressible liquid from a bottle provided with a spraying 

means having a stem through which the non-compressible liquid is 

dispensed, the portable refillable non-compressible liquid dispenser 

consisting of a body having an upper portion with a first opening and a 

bottom portion with a second opening, 

wherein the first opening has a vaporizer mechanism for dispensing 

non-compressible liquid received in the refillable dispenser, said 

vaporizer mechanism comprising a tube positioned within the 

dispenser, a pump communicating with the tube, and a nozzle 

communicating with the pump, through which nozzle the noncompressible liquid is sprayed in an outward direction; and 

wherein the second opening has a refill mechanism comprising a 

check valve adapted to receive the stem of the bottle so that when 

the stem is pushed through the check valve, the check valve is open 

to and receives the non-compressible liquid through the refill 

mechanism from the spraying means of the bottle and when the stem 

is withdrawn from the check valve, the check valve is closed to 

prevent leakage of the non-compressible liquid.” 

See Ex. A at col. 4, lns. 28-49. 

14. On June 26, 2014, counsel for Beauty Union sent a cease and desist 

letter to TBC’s Chairman, accusing TBC of infringing the ‘388 patent. A true and 

correct copy of the June 26 letter is attached as Exhibit B. 

15. In the letter of Exhibit B, BUG stated that TBC iGo Atomizer 

“infringes the claims of the ‘388 Patent.” BUG demanded that TBC “immediately 

5:15-cv-10028-JEL-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 3
4 

and permanently cease and desist all further offers for sale, sales, and importation 

of the iGo Atomizer.” 

16. BUG closed its letter with the threat that “[u]nless we receive 

confirmation and compliance of the above demands...we are authorized by 

Beauty Union to take all necessary steps to enforce its patent against The Bottle 

Crew.” 

17. On October 13, 2014, counsel for TBC responded, arguing that TBC 

“does not infringe the ‘388 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” 

A true and correct copy of the October 13 letter is attached as Exhibit C. 

18. Counsel for BUG wrote to TBC again on December 15, 2014, 

demanding that TBC “confirm by December 30, 2014, that TBC “has ceased all 

sales of the iGo Atomizer.” A true and correct copy of the December 15 letter is 

attached as Exhibit D. 

TBC’s iGo Atomizer Does Not Infringe the ‘388 Patent

19. Among other limitations, claim 1 of the ‘388 patent requires “a check 

valve adapted to receive the stem of the bottle so that when the stem is pushed 

through the check valve, the check valve is open to and receives the noncompressible liquid through the refill mechanism from the spraying means of the 

bottle and when the stem is withdrawn from the check valve, the check valve is 

closed to prevent leakage of the non-compressible liquid.” 

5:15-cv-10028-JEL-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 4
5 

20. Among other distinguishing differences, TBC’s iGo Atomizer is not 

adapted to receive the stem of a bottle. The stem of a bottle is not pushed through a 

check valve to receive a non-compressible liquid through a refill mechanism from 

the spraying means of a bottle. Nor is the stem of a bottle withdrawn from a check 

valve to prevent leakage of a non-compressible liquid. 

21. As Counsel of TBC attempted to explain to Counsel for BUG in the 

October 13 letter of Exhibit C, the iGo Atomizer comes with an adapter unit that 

fits over the stem of a refill bottle. The adapter is provided with every iGo 

Atomizer Product. The instructions for each iGo Atomizer instruct the purchaser 

to use the adapter (See Front and Back views, below). 

22. For at least the above reasons, TBC’s iGo Atomizer does not infringe 

the ‘388 patent. 

5:15-cv-10028-JEL-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 5
6 

An Actual and Justiciable Controversy Exists Between TBC and BUG

23. Based on BUG’s continued allegations of infringement, threats to 

“take all necessary steps to enforce its patent,” and demands that TBC cease selling 

its iGo Atomizer product, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between BUG 

and TBC with respect to infringement of the ‘388 patent. 

COUNT I 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

24. TBC restates and realleges each of the allegations set forth in 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

25. TBC has not infringed, and is not infringing, the ‘388 patent. 

26. TBC is entitled to a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 

‘388 patent. 

27. This is an exceptional case entitling TBC to an award of its 

Attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with prosecuting and defending this action 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

JURY DEMAND

28. TBC demands a jury trial for all claims so triable. 

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, TBC asks this Court for: 

5:15-cv-10028-JEL-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 6
7 

1. A judgment declaring that TBC has not infringed, and is not 

infringing, any valid claim of the ‘388 patent, and that TBC has not contributed to, 

or induced, and is not contributing to or inducing infringement of any valid and 

enforceable claim of the ‘388 patent; 

2. A judgment declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 285 and awarding TBC its costs, expenses, and reasonable Attorneys’ fees; and 

3. An award of such other and further relief this Court deems just and 

proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ John G. Posa (P49445) 

GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, 

ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C. 

2701 Troy Center Drive, Ste. 330 

P.O. Box 7021 

Troy, MI 48007 

(248) 647-6000 

(248) 647-5210 (fax) 

litigation@patlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: January 6, 2015 

5:15-cv-10028-JEL-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 7