Dafni Hair Products v. Trade Box & Tre Milano: Ceramic Brush Patent Battle Ends at 1,746 Days
Israeli haircare innovator Dafni Hair Products and co-plaintiff Guy A. Shaked Investments pursued Trade Box LLC and Tre Milano LLC over five patents covering ceramic straightening brush technology. After nearly five years of litigation in the Central District of California, the parties jointly requested dismissal with prejudice — each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Five-Patent Ceramic Brush Fight Ends in Mutual Walk-Away
Filed on 16 December 2019 in the Central District of California, this infringement action pitted Israeli haircare company Dafni Hair Products Ltd. and its investment affiliate Guy A. Shaked Investments Ltd. against U.S. consumer goods distributors Trade Box LLC and Tre Milano LLC. The complaint centred on five patents — three utility patents (US9578943B2, US9591906B2, US9877562B2) and two design patents (USD0817007S, USD0842539S) — covering the DAFNI ceramic straightening brush and its distinctive design. The accused products were the GLOSSIE and STRAIGHT UP ceramic straightening brushes sold under the defendants’ brands.
The case concluded on 26 September 2024 when the court granted the parties’ joint Request for Dismissal of the Entire Case with prejudice. With-prejudice dismissal is a final adjudication on the merits: the plaintiffs’ claims are permanently extinguished and cannot be re-asserted against these defendants on the same patents. Importantly, the court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting neither side obtained a clear litigation-cost advantage in whatever settlement or resolution preceded the joint filing.
At 1,746 days — nearly five years — this case ran substantially longer than the typical district court patent case. The involvement of three major plaintiff-side law firms (Arnold & Porter, Baker Botts, and Latham & Watkins) alongside four defendant-side firms signals hard-fought, resource-intensive litigation. The public record does not disclose whether a commercial settlement accompanied the dismissal or whether the parties simply agreed to end hostilities; the with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with either a confidential licence deal or a negotiated walk-away.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1746 days
1,746 days — nearly 5 years, well above the district court median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint walk-away means for both sides
With-prejudice dismissal bars all future re-filing on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under U.S. civil procedure. Dafni and Shaked Investments permanently relinquish the right to bring these same claims — across all five patents — against Trade Box and Tre Milano in any U.S. court. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, there is no option to refile. The joint nature of the request also forecloses any argument that one party was forced into the outcome.
Permanent bar on re-filingPlaintiffs exit with patents intact but claims extinguished against these defendants
Dafni’s five patents remain valid and in force — no invalidity ruling was entered. The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes only these specific claims against Trade Box and Tre Milano; Dafni retains the ability to assert the same patents against other accused infringers. Whether a confidential licence or royalty arrangement was reached is not disclosed in the public record, but the outcome is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a plaintiff concession.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersDefendants achieve finality — no damages, no injunction on the public record
Trade Box and Tre Milano secured dismissal with prejudice, meaning no damages judgment and no court-ordered injunction appear in the public record against their GLOSSIE and STRAIGHT UP products. Each side bearing its own costs means no fee-shifting award was entered against the defendants. However, any confidential terms — including product design-arounds or licence payments — remain undisclosed, leaving the full commercial picture uncertain.
No public damages or injunctionCeramic brush IP landscape remains contested: Dafni patents still active
The absence of an invalidity ruling means Dafni’s patent portfolio — covering both the functional and design aspects of ceramic straightening brushes — retains its full enforcement value against third-party competitors. Brands and OEMs operating in the ceramic hair tool space should treat these five patents as live enforcement risk. The nearly five-year duration and multi-firm representation suggests the patents withstood significant legal scrutiny before the parties chose to resolve outside a merits ruling.
Live enforcement risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd. | Company | Israeli haircare IP holder — proprietor of ceramic straightening brush utility and design patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Dafni Hair Products, Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Trade Box, LLC | Company | U.S. consumer goods distributors of competing ceramic straightening brush productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Tre Milano, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ann Marie Wahls | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Z. Bistricer | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cecilia Peniza | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joelle Justus | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph C. Akalski | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin C. Wheeler | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Madeleine A Ball | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Morin | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michele D. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Raj Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen D. O’Donohue | Attorney | Counsel for Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnold & Porter LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Latham & Watkins LLP | Law Firm | Representing Guy A. Shaked Investments, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ben M. Davidson | Attorney | Counsel for Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John S. Artz | Attorney | Counsel for Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan D. Nikkila | Attorney | Counsel for Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc E. Hankin | Attorney | Counsel for Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sharae L. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven A. Caloiaro | Attorney | Counsel for Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William P. Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Amin Wasserman Gurnani, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Davidson Law Group ALC | Law Firm | Representing Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hankin Patent Law APC | Law Firm | Representing Trade Box, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is notably terse: it recites the joint request, grants it, and dismisses the entire case with prejudice — no merits findings, no claim construction rulings, and no damages analysis appear in the public record. The phrase ‘each Party to bear its own fees and costs’ is a standard feature of negotiated resolutions and forecloses any subsequent fee petition under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The vacatur of the September 27 status conference confirms the case ended cleanly, with no outstanding matters remaining before the court.
US9578943B2 — ceramic hair straightening brush utility and design portfolio
The five patents in suit span both utility and design dimensions of the Dafni ceramic straightening brush concept. The utility patents — US9578943B2, US9591906B2, and US9877562B2 — cover functional aspects such as the brush’s ceramic heating element, bristle arrangement, and straightening mechanism that allows simultaneous combing and thermal straightening. The design patents USD0817007S and USD0842539S protect the ornamental appearance of the brush body. Application dates for the underlying applications range across 2014–2017, placing these patents in the first generation of purpose-built ceramic brush products to reach the mass market.
Strategically, a portfolio combining utility and design protection over the same product category creates layered enforcement risk for competitors. A rival brand that designs around the functional claims of the utility patents may still face design patent exposure if its product looks substantially similar to the protected ornamental designs. For the wider ceramic hair tool sector — which has seen rapid commoditisation through Asian OEM manufacturing — the Dafni portfolio represents a meaningful IP barrier to entry in the U.S. market. The portfolio’s survival through nearly five years of well-funded adversarial litigation suggests it has commercial staying power.
Should you run an FTO against the Dafni ceramic brush patent portfolio?
Any brand, OEM, or distributor developing or importing ceramic hair straightening brushes for the U.S. market should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against all five Dafni patents before commercialisation. The risk is compounded: utility claims cover functional brush architecture, while design claims cover visual appearance. Products that differ functionally may still infringe on design grounds if the overall commercial impression resembles the patented ornamental design. Retailers stocking third-party ceramic brush products under their own labels face parallel exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the claim scope of US9578943B2, US9591906B2, US9877562B2, USD0817007S, and USD0842539S in minutes. The agent identifies claim elements, surfaces prior art that may support design-around strategies, and flags related family members or continuation applications that could extend the risk horizon. For R&D teams at the product design stage, running Eureka’s analysis early — before tooling investment — is the most cost-efficient path to a defensible market position.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9578943B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ceramic hair tool and personal care device patent cases
Explore patent infringement actions involving ceramic hair straightening and styling tool technology litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the ceramic hair tool IP landscape
A five-patent, five-year fight resolved quietly — but the IP implications for the broader hair tool sector are anything but quiet.
Dafni’s patent portfolio survived nearly five years of litigation pressure
No invalidity ruling was entered despite extensive litigation involving multiple top-tier law firms on both sides. This suggests the utility and design patents covering the ceramic straightening brush concept are defensible. Competitors and product developers in the hair tool space should treat US9578943B2, US9591906B2, US9877562B2, USD0817007S, and USD0842539S as active enforcement risk.
Mutual cost-bearing signals a negotiated resolution, not a capitulation
In patent cases that end with a clear winner, fee-shifting or cost awards are common. The court’s order that each party bear its own costs is consistent with a commercial settlement where both sides conceded something. IP teams monitoring competitive dynamics in the ceramic brush market should watch for subsequent licensing activity or product redesigns by the defendants.
Guy v Trade — key questions answered
The case (2:19-cv-10593) was dismissed with prejudice on 26 September 2024 pursuant to a joint request by all parties. With-prejudice dismissal permanently extinguishes the plaintiffs’ claims against Trade Box and Tre Milano on all five asserted patents; re-filing on the same claims is barred.
Dafni and co-plaintiff Guy A. Shaked Investments asserted five patents: utility patents US9578943B2, US9591906B2, and US9877562B2 covering ceramic straightening brush functionality, and design patents USD0817007S and USD0842539S covering the ornamental appearance of the Dafni brush.
The accused products were the GLOSSIE ceramic straightening brush and the STRAIGHT UP ceramic straightening brush, both associated with defendants Trade Box LLC and Tre Milano LLC. These products were alleged to infringe Dafni’s utility and design patent portfolio covering the DAFNI brush.
No merits rulings — including no invalidity findings, no claim construction order, and no damages determination — appear in the public record for this case. The litigation ended via a joint dismissal request before any final adjudication on the merits, meaning the patents’ validity was not judicially assessed.
The court ordered that each party absorb its own attorneys’ fees and costs, foreclosing any subsequent fee petition under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This arrangement is typical of negotiated resolutions and suggests neither side obtained a clear litigation advantage sufficient to justify fee-shifting. It does not disclose whether a commercial settlement or licence was separately agreed between the parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.