CAO Group, Inc. v. GuruNanda, LLC

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Case overview and background

The parties — a competitor-on-competitor fight, not an NPE shakedown. CAO Group, Inc. is a Utah corporation headquartered at 4628 W. Skyhawk Dr., West Jordan, UT, that designs and sells dental and oral-care products (its whitening-strip line is marketed as "Sheer White!" and "Lumist," sold direct and through Henry Schein) and claims 190-plus issued patents and applications worldwide; its co-inventors on the asserted family are CAO chemist Steven D. Jensen and CAO founder Dr. Densen Cao (D. Utah complaint ¶¶ 14, 18–22; N.D. Ill. complaint ¶ 21). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies CAO in the "8 – Product company" asserter category rather than as a PAE (Stanford NPE DB, '259 patent), and the litigation record is consistent with that: CAO is a practicing manufacturer that has been litigating this family against real market participants — P&G's Crest 3D Whitestrips (C.D. Cal. 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC), Ivoclar Vivadent's VivaStyle (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01430), Karaka/DoubleY (N.D. Ill. 1:24-cv-04903), Hismile (N.D. Ill. 1:26-cv-11795), and a long list of Amazon/eBay "Schedule A" seller aliases (N.D. Ill. 1:24-cv-01211; 1:25-cv-08205). GuruNanda, LLC is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business at 6645 Caballero Blvd., Buena Park, CA — a consumer-products company in the essential-oil and oral-care space (whitening strips, pulling oil, tongue scrapers, diffusers) that is itself patent-active: in 2026 it sued Sacks Holdings d/b/a Grin Oral Care in S.D. Cal. on design patent D1,081,354 ("Bottle Cap") (GuruNanda v. Sacks complaint). Plaintiff's counsel of record is Brian E. Lahti; GuruNanda is represented by Christopher D. Bright (Snell & Wilmer, whose Costa Mesa IP group has long handled GuruNanda matters, per its TTAB filings) (Justia docket; TTABVUE 91255889).

The accused technology and the patents. The suit targets GuruNanda's at-home teeth-whitening strip products — the PAP-based whitening strips GuruNanda markets to retail and e-commerce channels. CAO's complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 9/12/2025) attaches copies of five patents from a single 2006-priority family, and the case databases index the dispute under several of them: U.S. 10,603,259 (dental bleaching device: flexible backing + peroxide/solvent/thickener composition, with the PVP-or-polyethyloxazoline limitation and the "gelatinous/viscoelastic" property elements); U.S. 10,646,419 (same device family, emphasizing adhesive properties and substantially full-side coating); U.S. 11,219,582 (dried, non-fluid composition that flexes and conforms to the dental arch "without cracking or breaking"); U.S. 11,826,444, "Peroxide Gel Compositions" (a "gelatinous, non-coalescent, visco-elastic" composition conjoined to a planar strip, thickener selected from PEOx/PVP); and U.S. 11,826,445 (near-identical sibling of the '444) (PACER Monitor Dkt. 1 attachments; USPTO Gazette for '444; Stanford NPE DB, '445). Two features of that family drive everything: (i) claim 1 of the '444 recites "a tooth whitening agent" and only dependent claim 5 requires a peroxide, which is how CAO reaches non-hydrogen-peroxide chemistries such as PAP (phthalimidoperoxycaproic acid); and (ii) the whole chain (11/307,463 → 9,295,619 → 9,789,036 → '419 → '582 → '444 → '445) claims priority to Feb. 8, 2006 and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, so the '444's term runs out around Feb. 8, 2026 — i.e., this is an end-of-term, past-damages case rather than an injunction case (USPTO Gazette; Ex Parte '444 case analysis). I could not retrieve the GuruNanda complaint's own accused-product identification or claim chart (Dkt. 1 isn't in the free RECAP mirror), so the precise SKU list and asserted claims should be pulled from PACER before

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and patent background.

Good start. Let me get the full docket and look for later developments.

Let me pull the docket from CourtListener/PACER and check for PTAB proceedings.

CAO Group, Inc. v. GuruNanda, LLC, No. 8:25-cv-02074 (C.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: This case has not produced a trial, verdict, Markman ruling, or final judgment. As of today (2026-11-03) it is an active, mid-discovery case in which the only substantive contested activity on the docket is a Rule 37 discovery sanctions fight. No PTAB proceeding on the '444 patent was located. One important structural fact drives the whole campaign: the asserted patent family's term appears to have expired in February 2026, converting this into a past-damages case.

A note on sourcing: the free docket mirrors are stale (Justia's last pull is 2026-02-04), so events between February and November 2026 are reconstructed from C.D. Cal. courtroom-deputy calendars and parallel-case records rather than a full PACER run. Gaps are flagged explicitly.

---

I. Filing and initial pleadings

2025-09-12 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). CAO Group, Inc. (West Jordan, UT), represented by Brian E. Lahti, filed a § 1338 patent infringement action with a jury demand against GuruNanda, LLC (Buena Park, CA). Filed in the Southern Division before District Judge James V. Selna, with Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick designated. Filing-fee receipt ACACDC-40494125; Civil Cover Sheet (Dkt. 2), AO 120 report (Dkt. 3), and corporate disclosure/notice of interested parties (Dkt. 4) filed the same day.

• Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/8:2025cv02074/[986965](/patent/986965)

Patents asserted. The case metadata flags only the '444 patent, but the complaint's exhibit list shows CAO pleaded the entire continuation family:

• Ex. A — U.S. Pat. No. 10,603,259
• Ex. B — U.S. Pat. No. 10,646,419
• Ex. C — U.S. Pat. No. 11,219,582
• Ex. D — Approval of Certificate of Correction
• Ex. E — U.S. Pat. No. 11,826,444 ("Peroxide gel compositions")
• Ex. F — U.S. Pat. No. 11,826,445

All six docket/exhibit items appear in the PACER Monitor capture: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60133256/CAO_Group_Inc_v_GuruNanda,_LLC. Stanford's NPE database corroborates multi-patent tagging (it lists the '259, '419 and '445 patents against this case number): https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/11826445

Accused product. GuruNanda's "PAP+ Strips" teeth-whitening strips. The technical hook is that the accused gel uses phthalimidoperoxycaproic acid (PAP) as the whitening agent and PVP as the thickener — no hydrogen peroxide. That matters because the '444 claims recite a genus "tooth whitening agent" while the specification is titled and largely written around peroxide gels, teeing up a claim-scope/§ 112 written-description fight that CAO's parallel pleadings do not squarely address. (This is my analytical read of the claim language in the Hismile complaint, which asserts the identical claim 1 against the same PAP+ product; it is not a court ruling.)

The '444 patent itself. Issued 2023-11-28; inventors Steven D. Jensen and Densen Cao; assigned to CAO Group. Claim 1 (6 claims total) covers a dental whitening device: a flexible planar backing strip, a "gelatinous, non-coalescent, visco-elastic" composition on one flat side, comprising a whitening agent, a solvent, and a thickener selected from polyethyloxazoline or PVP, flexing to the dental arch without cracking. Prosecution chain runs back through App. Nos. 17/557,560 → 16/784,582 ('582) → 15/627,906 ('419) → 14/710,416 (9,789,036) → 12/329,582 (9,295,619) → CIP of 11/307,463 (filed 2006-02-08, abandoned). Subject to a terminal disclaimer.

• https://patentsgazette.uspto.gov/week48/OG/html/1516-4/[US11826444](/patent/US11826444)-20231128.html

⚠️ Term/expiry — flagged. Measuring 20 years from the 2006-02-08 earliest non-provisional filing, the '444 (and its siblings) would expire 2026-02-08. Third-party complaint analysis of the Hismile case states the expiry as 2026-02-08. I could not confirm this from a court record or from a PTO term calculation in the GuruNanda docket, and it is the single most consequential unverified fact here (see §VII).

Service and the answer extension ladder.

• 2025-09-29 — Dkt. 8, Judge Selna's Initial Order Following Filing of Complaint.
• 2025-10-15 — GuruNanda served via Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. (proof of service Dkt. 11, filed 2025-10-16); answer due 2025-11-05.
• 2025-11-07 — Dkt. 12, first stipulation extending answer to 2025-12-05; appearance of Christopher D. Bright for GuruNanda. Ketan S. Vakil (Snell & Wilmer) also appears on the docket and Law360 indexes him to this filing: https://www.law360.com/firms/snell-wilmer/attorneys/ketan-s-vakil
• 2025-12-03 / 2025-12-09 — Dkt. 13 second stipulation to 2026-01-19, granted (Dkt. 14).
• 2026-01-16 / 2026-01-22 — Dkt. 15 third stipulation to 2026-02-02, granted (Dkt. 16).

Three successive extensions totaling ~90 days is routine but is the usual signature of either (a) parallel settlement/license talks, or (b) a defendant buying time on an IPR/validity assessment. Nothing in the record I retrieved confirms which.

2026-02-02 — Answer filed (Dkt. 17) with jury demand; corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 18). The docket text

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for this case.

Bottom line

Only one attorney has appeared for CAO Group on this docket: Brian E. Lahti of Lahti Helfgott, LLC (Salt Lake City, UT). He is the filer/signatory on every plaintiff-side entry in the docket through the last docket snapshot I could retrieve (Feb. 4, 2026). No separate local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no second plaintiff-side firm appears in the record I could verify. A strong candidate for co-counsel (Jonathan A. Helfgott, same firm) appears in CAO Group's parallel cases but I could not confirm an appearance by him in this case — see caveats.

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Docket grounding for Lahti's appearance

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint, filed 9/12/2025, "Attorney Brian E Lahti added to party CAO Group Inc(pty:pla)." Exhibits A–F are the '259, '419, '582, a certificate-of-correction approval, the '444 patent, and the '445 patent.
• Dkt. 2, 3, 4 — Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71), AO-120 patent report, and Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure/interested-parties statement, all signed by Lahti (9/12/2025).
• Dkt. 9 — Request for Clerk to Issue Summons (10/8/2025), Lahti.
• Dkt. 11 — Proof of service on GuruNanda via Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. (service 10/15/2025), Lahti.
• Docket sheet: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/8:2025cv02074/986965

Relevant patent-litigation experience (Lahti)

• Identified as plaintiff CAO Group's counsel in the same patent family in CAO Group, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc. (D. Utah 2:24-cv-00175) and as CAO's counsel in CAO Group, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01430, filed 11/24/2025, asserting the same '259/'419/'582/'444/'445 family).
• Defended CAO in the declaratory-judgment action Ranir LLC v. CAO Group Inc (D. Utah 2:24-cv-00498), where CAO answered and counterclaimed on the same patents — i.e., he has litigated this exact portfolio on both sides of the "v.".
• Older patent work: CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Light Efficient Design (N.D. Ill., 2017); firm bio credits him with defending a patent-infringement case through a Federal Circuit affirmance and with designing "offensive patent enforcement strategies." Previously an associate at Magleby Cataxinos (Law360 firm page) and, before that, an AmLaw 100 associate.

---

What I could not confirm / explicit gaps

• Jonathan A. Helfgott (Lahti Helfgott, Denver) — Patent-database counsel records and the CAO v. Walmart docket list him alongside Lahti as CAO Group's counsel (in Walmart he was the subject of a C.D. Cal.-style pro hac vice notice). He is a plausible second plaintiff attorney here, but I found no appearance, PHV application, or signature by him on the 8:25-cv-02074 docket, and no press coverage naming him. Treat as unconfirmed.
• In-house counsel — None of record. CAO Group's founder/CEO Densen Cao, Ph.D. appears as the company's contact in USPTO proceedings, but he is not an attorney of record in this case.
• Local counsel — None on the docket; consistent with Lahti's C.D. Cal. admission.
• Sealed filings — I found no sealing order or sealed plaintiff filings in this case (unlike CAO's separate N.D. Ill. Schedule-A suits, where sealing motions were litigated).
• Post-February 2026 appearances — My best docket snapshot ends 2/4/2026 (Dkt. 19, Rule 26(f) order; answer filed at Dkt. 17). I could not retrieve a PACER-current docket, so I cannot rule out later additions of counsel (e.g., a trial-team or appellate addition). What I can confirm post-snapshot: the case remains active into late 2026, with Dkt. 33, "Plaintiff's Application to Compel Documents and Interrogatory Responses, Application for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," noticed for hearing 8/25/2026 and re-set to 9/1/2026 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge James V. Selna (C.D. Cal. judicial calendar postings). Notably, the court's own JPS calendar forms for those hearings left the "ATTORNEY(S) FOR PLAINTIFF" block blank, so they do not independently corroborate any additional appearances.
• Press coverage — No Law360 or Reuters Legal item on this case surfaced; no counsel identification from secondary sources beyond docket and firm/patent-database records.

Recommendation for verification: pull the current PACER docket for 8:25-cv-02074 and check the "Attorneys" panel plus any PHV orders entered after 2/4/2026. If Helfgott does not appear there, Lahti is the sole plaintiff-side attorney of record and should be listed as lead counsel.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for GuruNanda in this case.

Counsel of Record for Defendant GuruNanda, LLC

CAO Group, Inc. v. GuruNanda, LLC, No. 8:25-cv-02074 (C.D. Cal.) — JVS (DFMX), Judge James V. Selna / Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick

Appearing counsel

1. Christopher D. Bright — Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. (Partner); de facto lead counsel

• Office: Orange County / Costa Mesa, Cal. (Plaza Tower, 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626); also listed for San Diego.
• Docket role: The first and only attorney shown adding himself to the docket for GuruNanda — Dkt. 12 (Nov. 7, 2025), the first joint stipulation extending GuruNanda's response date ("Attorney Christopher D Bright added to party GuruNanda, LLC"). He then filed every substantive defense paper on the public docket: Dkt. 13 (Dec. 3, 2025 stipulation), Dkt. 15 (Jan. 16, 2026 third stipulation), Dkt. 17 (Answer with jury demand, Feb. 2, 2026), and Dkt. 18 (Corporate Disclosure Statement, Feb. 2, 2026). (Justia docket; PacerMonitor)
• Experience note: 25+ years of patent litigation; physics degree (UCSD), GWU Law; tries patent cases in district courts and the ITC; frequent PTAB/IPR and Federal Circuit lead counsel; IAM Patent 1000 and Best Lawyers (IP Litigation) honoree. Notably he was lead trial/claim-construction counsel for defendant Apricorn in SPEX Technologies v. Apricorn, No. 2:16-cv-07349-JVS-AGR (C.D. Cal.) — the same judge (Selna) now presiding over this case. (Snell & Wilmer bio; CourtListener, SPEX docket)

2. Ketan S. Vakil — Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. (Partner; co-chair, IP Practice Group)

• Office: Costa Mesa / Orange County (600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626).
• Docket role: Listed in the docket's attorney/party roll as counsel for GuruNanda ("Ketan Shashikant Vakil") on the Justia docket's party-counsel listing. He is GuruNanda's long-standing outside IP counsel — the recorded trademark correspondent for numerous GuruNanda applications (e.g., Serial Nos. 97633871, 98842136, 98844313), and IAM's Patent 1000 profile states he "has served as long-standing outside counsel to major companies, including advising Gurunanda on its IP strategy across prosecution, litigation and broader portfolio development." (IAM Patent 1000 profile; Snell & Wilmer bio)
• Experience note: Co-chair of Snell & Wilmer's IP group and former managing partner of its Orange County office (2017–2022); lead counsel in multiple IPRs; IAM Patent 1000 (2022–2026), IAM Strategy 300 (2024). His representative-matters list includes patent actions for "oral care dental company … dental kits, electronic toothbrushes and mouthwashes" — the closest analog to this mouthwash/dental-device dispute. (Snell & Wilmer bio)

Structural observations

• No separate local counsel. Both defense attorneys are in Snell & Wilmer's Costa Mesa office, which satisfies C.D. Cal. local-rule presence; no second (local) firm appears on the docket.
• Role allocation (inferred, not docket-designated). C.D. Cal. does not designate "lead" vs. "of counsel" on the docket; the designation above is my inference from who signed the answer and discovery papers (Bright) versus who is the client's portfolio/prosecution relationship partner (Vakil). Treat Bright as the attorney of record for litigation purposes.
• No in-house counsel of record identified. GuruNanda's USPTO correspondence address routes to Gideon Eckhouse at gurunanda.com (Buena Park, CA headquarters), suggesting an in-house IP contact, but I found no indication he is admitted counsel or has appeared in this action. Do not assume an in-house appearance.

Sourcing caveats — please read

1. Docket currency. The free docket I could retrieve was last refreshed February 4, 2026 (Justia). The court's own calendar confirms the case has moved substantially since then — e.g., Plaintiff's Application to Compel Documents and Interrogatory Responses and Application for Sanctions (Dkt. 33), noticed for August 25, 2026 and continued to September 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge McCormick (Conference ID 227 170 605). (C.D. Cal. judges' calendar) That means additional appearances, substitutions, or a withdrawal could have occurred after Feb. 4, 2026 that are not reflected above. A live PACER docket pull (or the Dkt. 33 papers' signature blocks and certificate of service) is needed to confirm no new counsel have appeared, and I have not verified that.
2. Vakil's formal appearance not directly confirmed. I confirmed his name in the docket's counsel listing and his documented GuruNanda relationship, but I could not retrieve a specific "Notice of Appearance" docket entry bearing his name. It is possible his name appears only in the party-counsel roll (e.g., from the Answer's signature block or as a noticed attorney) rather than via a standalone appearance. Verify against the Answer (Dkt. 17) signature block.
3. Nothing on this docket appears sealed as to counsel; the complaint, answer, and corporate disclosure are all public. If any portion of the Dkt. 33 discovery papers was filed under seal, counsel identification would still be public.
4. I found no Law360 or Reuters coverage of this case, and no PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) involving the '444 patent and GuruNanda. The absence of IPR activity is worth re-checking on PTAB's docket before relying on it.