11.01.17
The Procter & Gamble Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary The Gillette Company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the US District Court of Connecticut against Edgewell Personal Care Company and several subsidiaries. The lawsuit challenges Edgewell’s Hydro Connect 5 razor cartridges, which are sold online and positioned as compatible with Gillette Fusion handles.
The lawsuit alleges patent infringement and seeks damages from these infringements. P&G also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking an exclusion order to prohibit Edgewell from importing the products into the US from China.
The patent, which relates to how the razor cartridge and handle connect, was granted to P&G in 2015, according to Procter & Gamble. The lawsuit alleges that Edgewell violates this patent with two products, Hydro Connect 5 and Hydro Connect 5 Sensitive, which were launched earlier this year.
“For over a century, Gillette has been investing to deliver world class innovation and shaving products of the highest quality, which is why so many men trust their faces to Gillette,” said Chief Legal Officer Deborah P. Majoras. “It is also why we take action when necessary to defend our vital technical advancements and the equally vital scientists who produce them.”
P&G also filed a lawsuit in August 2016 related to Edgewell’s 3-bladed private label razors, alleging deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, unfair competition, and patent infringement by Edgewell.
Two days after filing the suit, Edgewell Personal Care Company issued the following statement in response to the Procter & Gamble Company’s lawsuit:
“As a challenger company, we constantly strive to bring solutions, value and choice to consumers. We are offering refills which fit Gillette Fusion handles via schickhydro.com. These refills offer consumers a great shave and a great value. It isn’t surprising that Gillette is doing whatever it can to try and stop us.
“As innovators ourselves, we have numerous patents, and take intellectual property very seriously. However, P&G’s allegations in this instance are meritless. P&G has a history of using litigation in the face of competition. We have a long track record of successfully defending our innovation against similar tactics. We will vigorously defend ourselves against these unfounded claims.”
The lawsuit alleges patent infringement and seeks damages from these infringements. P&G also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking an exclusion order to prohibit Edgewell from importing the products into the US from China.
The patent, which relates to how the razor cartridge and handle connect, was granted to P&G in 2015, according to Procter & Gamble. The lawsuit alleges that Edgewell violates this patent with two products, Hydro Connect 5 and Hydro Connect 5 Sensitive, which were launched earlier this year.
“For over a century, Gillette has been investing to deliver world class innovation and shaving products of the highest quality, which is why so many men trust their faces to Gillette,” said Chief Legal Officer Deborah P. Majoras. “It is also why we take action when necessary to defend our vital technical advancements and the equally vital scientists who produce them.”
P&G also filed a lawsuit in August 2016 related to Edgewell’s 3-bladed private label razors, alleging deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, unfair competition, and patent infringement by Edgewell.
Two days after filing the suit, Edgewell Personal Care Company issued the following statement in response to the Procter & Gamble Company’s lawsuit:
“As a challenger company, we constantly strive to bring solutions, value and choice to consumers. We are offering refills which fit Gillette Fusion handles via schickhydro.com. These refills offer consumers a great shave and a great value. It isn’t surprising that Gillette is doing whatever it can to try and stop us.
“As innovators ourselves, we have numerous patents, and take intellectual property very seriously. However, P&G’s allegations in this instance are meritless. P&G has a history of using litigation in the face of competition. We have a long track record of successfully defending our innovation against similar tactics. We will vigorously defend ourselves against these unfounded claims.”
