Untitled case

This is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the District of Delaware concerning absorbent hygiene products. The plaintiff, Essity Hygiene and Health AB (a Swedish company) and its Delaware-incorporated subsidiary Essity HMS North America Inc., are leading global hygiene and health company specializing in products such as adult incontinence, baby care, and feminine care products. The defendants are First Quality Products, Inc. (a New York corporation) and several related First Quality entities (some Delaware-organized), which also manufacture and sell similar disposable hygiene products.

The core dispute revolves around First Quality's adult incontinence products, specifically those featuring a "MaxSorb+ Zone," which Essity alleges infringe its patent. These accused products are marketed for their rapid absorption capabilities. The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 9,308,138, which describes multi-component absorbent structures engineered for rapid fluid intake in disposable hygienic articles to manage sudden, high-volume fluid gushes without leakage.

The case, identified as 1:24-cv-00374, was filed on March 22, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, with Judge Gregory B. Williams presiding. Delaware is a common venue for patent litigation due to its well-developed corporate law, experienced judiciary in intellectual property matters, and the fact that many corporations, including several First Quality entities, are incorporated under Delaware law, providing a basis for venue. This case is notable due to the extensive prior litigation history between these parties, which includes an unrelated patent issue that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Essity's complaint also alleges that First Quality copied its commercial product, the "Tena Discreet with instaDRY® zone," which Essity asserts embodies the patent-in-suit.

This is an active patent infringement case in the District of Delaware, 1:24-cv-00374, involving U.S. Patent No. 9,308,138. The plaintiff is Essity Hygiene and Health AB and its subsidiary Essity HMS North America Inc., and the defendants are First Quality Products, Inc. and related First Quality entities. The case concerns adult incontinence products and Essity's allegation that First Quality's "MaxSorb+ Zone" products infringe its patent. The asserted patent generally describes multi-component absorbent structures for rapid fluid intake in disposable hygienic articles. The case is presided over by Judge Gregory B. Williams.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes to date:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• March 22, 2024: Essity Hygiene and Health AB and Essity HMS North America Inc. filed the patent infringement lawsuit against First Quality Products, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,308,138.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• As of the current date (June 16, 2026), publicly available information does not indicate any substantive pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment that have reached an outcome. The case remains active.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• No Markman hearing or claim construction order has been publicly reported yet.

Discovery Milestones:

• A scheduling order was issued on February 20, 2025.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case is active and has not yet reached the trial stage.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active and no final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment) has been reported.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• October 25, 2024: A parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00053, was instituted by First Quality Products LLC against U.S. Patent No. 9,308,138. This IPR is currently pending.
• The institution of IPR2025-00053 indicates that the validity of the patent-in-suit is being challenged before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in parallel with the district court litigation.

Essity Hygiene and Health AB and Essity HMS North America Inc. are represented by attorneys from two firms: Fish & Richardson P.C. and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s):

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Fish & Richardson is a global intellectual property law firm with a strong focus on patent litigation and prosecution. They have offices across the U.S. and Europe.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP is a Wilmington, Delaware-based law firm recognized for its intellectual property litigation, corporate litigation, and corporate counseling practices. The firm is frequently involved as Delaware counsel in significant intellectual property matters.

Specific attorney names and their roles, beyond the identifying the firms, were not immediately available through the provided search results for this specific case at this stage. The complaint indicates "Plaintiff's Counsel: Farnan LLP", but it appears this may be local counsel or a former representation as other search results prominently feature Fish & Richardson and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell as counsel for Essity in patent matters. For a precise and exhaustive list of individual attorneys and their roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel), access to the full docket from PACER would be necessary.

The defendants, First Quality Products, Inc. and related entities, are represented by a team of attorneys from several law firms. Based on publicly available information, the counsel of record for the defendants include:

• Richard K. Herrmann (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris James LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Richard K. Herrmann handles various complex litigation, including intellectual property, commercial, and technology cases. He has actively practiced patent litigation in the District of Delaware for over 15 years, representing clients such as Alcon, Allied Signal, Allergan, Amgen, and Motorola. He was also involved in the Ragner Technology v. Telebrands patent dispute in the District of Delaware.
• William J. O'Brien (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: One LLP
  • Office Location: Newport Beach, CA and Culver City, CA
  • Experience: William J. O'Brien has extensive experience with patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright, trade secret, and idea submission cases across a wide range of technologies, including medical devices and consumer electronics. He has successfully represented clients in major jury trials and appellate proceedings before the Federal Circuit. He was also involved in a Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation case (Bausch Health v. Mylan) which concluded with a stipulated dismissal.
• Kevin M. McGinty (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Experience: Kevin M. McGinty is a Member and Co-chair of the Class Action Practice at Mintz. His practice areas include patent litigation.
• Michael J. DeRita (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
  • Experience: Michael J. DeRita has experience with patent litigation.