CAO Group, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Company

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the consolidated case, the patent family, and any PTAB activity.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. CAO Group, Inc. is a Utah-based dental/medical device company (Salt Lake City, later West Jordan) founded and led by Dr. Densen Cao, with its in-house chemist Steven D. Jensen named as inventor on the patents in this family. CAO is an operating company, not a patent troll: it makes and sells Sheer White! professional whitening strips (in-office plus take-home kits) through its own site and distributor Henry Schein, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a "Product company." That characterization is worth flagging as time-bound — after this case, CAO's assertion activity became markedly more aggressive (see below). The defendant is The Procter & Gamble Company (Ohio) together with The Procter & Gamble Distributing LLC, which does business as P&G Oral Health and runs the professional-dental channel for Crest 3D Whitestrips. The two sides are not strangers: P&G sued CAO for infringement of its own Whitestrips patents ('569, '811, '199) in S.D. Ohio in May 2013 (P&G v. CAO, No. 1:13-cv-00337-TSB); CAO responded with three IPR petitions in 2014 (IPR2014-00796, -00797, -00798), all of which the PTAB refused to institute in November 2014, and the Ohio action was dismissed in December 2014. This 2022 case is therefore the second round of a decade-long strip-vs-strip fight, with the parties' roles reversed.

The accused technology. CAO targeted P&G's Crest 3D Whitestrips family — including Professional Effects, Supreme Bright, Sensitive, Luxe Glamorous White, Classic Vivid, Brilliance White, Vivid Plus, Supreme Flexfit, and the professional-channel "Professional Supreme"/"Professional Exclusive" SKUs — plus the ARC Whitestrips line. The theory was label-based: CAO alleged the products' ingredient listings show PVP, water, and hydrogen peroxide atop a flexible polyethylene strip with a polypropylene backing, and that P&G's "No-Slip Grip" marketing confirms the claimed adhesion/conformability. CAO also alleged the Crest strip line generates over $200 million in annual U.S. sales. The sole patent in this docket is U.S. Patent No. 11,219,582, "Peroxide Gel Composition" (issued Jan. 11, 2022; Appl. No. 16/784,582, filed Feb. 7, 2020; inventors Jensen and Cao; assigned to CAO). In one line: a flexible, planar backing strip coated with a dried peroxide gel that is "gelatinous, non-coalescent, and visco-elastic" and uses poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) as the thickener so the loaded strip flexes and conforms to the dental arch without cracking or breaking. The '582 is a continuation in a chain running back through the '419 patent and the '036 and '619 patents to a February 2006 CIP — the same family that produced the '259, '444, and '445 patents, all of which CAO has since asserted against other defendants. CAO pleaded claim 1 and dependent claim 2, reserving additional claims.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Oct. 26, 2022 in C.D. Cal.; initially assigned to Judge R. Gary Klausner and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym, then transferred on Oct. 31, 2022 to Judge John W. Holcomb and Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo under General Order 21-01 as related to CAO v. P&G, No. 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC (filed Jan. 25, 2022, asserting the '259 and '419 patents). On Nov. 14, 2022, Judge Holcomb granted the parties' joint stipulation and consolidated this case into the lower-numbered 5:22-cv-00142 and administratively closed it (Dkt. 26) — which is why the docket shows a "terminated" date only 19 days after filing. That termination is a consolidation artifact, not any ruling on the '582 patent; P&G's answer filed here on Nov. 17, 2022 was later stricken because filings had to go in the lead case. Venue in C.D. Cal. (Southern Division, Santa Ana) rested on P&G's West Coast Mixing Center in Moreno Valley, California, through which Crest 3D Whitestrips are distributed, plus the interactive crest.com and crestoralbproshop.com sites; P&G expressly admitted venue was proper and reserved only personal jurisdiction, so there was no TC Heartland fight. The choice of California over CAO's home district of Utah is notable — it put the case before a busy patent docket with a distribution-center hook rather than P&G's Ohio home turf. The consolidated action settled: the parties stipulated to a stay on March 6, 2023, executed a settlement and license agreement on March 9, 2023, and jointly moved under Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss with prejudice while expressly asking the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement (Dkt. 68, Mar. 22, 2023; Jones Day — which represented P&G along with in-house counsel and Jones Day's Steven Corr, David Maiorana, and Kenneth Luchesi — confirms the March 2023 settlement).

Why it's notable. (1) No IPR linkage in this round. My searches located no PTAB petition against the '582 or its '259/'419 siblings; the IPR history in this feud runs the other direction, with CAO's 2014 challenges to P&G's foundational Whitestrips patents all denied institution. (2) The settlement bought peace, not clarity. CAO did not stop: it issued the '444 and '445 patents in November 2023, sent demand letters to Ranir and its retail customers in 2023–24, filed mass "Schedule A" e-commerce suits in N.D. Ill. (e.g., 1:24-cv-01211) and a case against Walmart in D. Utah, and later sued Ivoclar (D. Del. 2025) and GuruNanda (C.D. Cal. 2025) on the same family. Ranir fired back with a declaratory judgment action in D. Utah (Ranir LLC v. CAO Group, 2:24-cv-00498, filed July 2024) alleging the whole family is invalid over Ranir's own pre-2006 oral care layer — meaning the validity of the '582 claims was never adjudicated against P&G and remains live industry-wide. (3) Market context: this was a professional-channel competitor (Sheer White!) attacking the dominant OTC franchise (Crest 3D Whitestrips) in the largest whitening-strip market in the world, on a family that claims a 2006 priority date — a fact pattern that cuts both ways, since the early priority date strengthens the patents against later art but exposes them to pre-2006 products like Ranir's. Treat the case itself as a short-lived consolidation stub in a settlement-track dispute, not a merits precedent.

Sourcing note: PACER itself was not queried directly; docket facts come from the Justia and DocketBird docket sheets for 5:22-cv-01874 and the consolidated 5:22-cv-00142 (including quoted order text), the complaint and P&G's answer as posted on the amlaw/docketalarm document servers, the Rule 41(a)(2) joint motion (Dkt. 68), PTAB papers and the November 2014 institution denials, Jones Day's case-experience summaries, contemporaneous trade press (Dental Products Report, HAPPI), and the USPTO Official Gazette entry for the '

I'll research this case starting with the docket and any related proceedings.

Key finding: this case was consolidated into a lower-numbered case. Let me research that lead case and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me get the lead case docket in detail and check for PTAB proceedings on the '582 patent.

Bottom line up front

The docket's "terminated 2022-11-14" date is a procedural artifact, not the end of the dispute. CAO's '582 suit was consolidated into an earlier-filed, related CAO v. P&G case on 2022-11-14 and administratively closed; all further proceedings ran in No. 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC. The merits of the consolidated action ended in a settlement and license agreement executed 2023-03-09 and a stipulated dismissal with prejudice entered 2023-03-23 (Dkt. 69), with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. There was no Markman ruling, no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, and no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding on the '582 patent rose to the level of a parallel challenge.

---

1. The predicate: an earlier CAO–P&G suit was already pending (2022-01-25)

• 2022-01-25 — CAO Group filed No. 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC (C.D. Cal.) against The Procter & Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Distributing LLC, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 10,603,259 and 10,646,419 — the earlier-issued members of the same "peroxide gel compositions" family (priority 2006-02-08) to which the '582 patent belongs. Confirmed by the parties' joint motion: "CAO filed this action for patent infringement against P&G on January 25, 2022. (Dkt. 1.)" (Dkt. 68 at 1).
• The '582 patent issued 2022-01-11 — sixteen days before the '142 complaint was filed but, per the record, it was not pleaded there; instead CAO sent a notice letter to P&G on 2022-04-15 and then filed a separate action in October. The consolidation record confirms a two-track structure deliberately created by CAO.

2. Filing and initial pleadings in 5:22-cv-01874

• 2022-10-26 — CAO Group, Inc. filed the complaint against The Procter & Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Distributing LLC, captioned as a § 271 infringement action over the '582 patent ("Peroxide gel composition"). CAO asserted independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2, reserving additional claims. Accused products: the Crest 3D Whitestrips family and the ARC Whitestrip family, with infringement premised on label-disclosed PVP/water/hydrogen peroxide and the "No-Slip Grip" marketing (complaint analysis, ¶¶ 76–88).
• 2022-10-27 — Case initially assigned under Judge R. Gary Klausner's standing order (Dkt. 14).
• 2022-11-08 — P&G filed its Notice of Interested Parties, identifying P&G, P&G Distributing LLC, Gillette Commercial Operations North America, and The Gillette Company LLC (Dkt. 22) — the corporate-family disclosure that later matters for any license-scope question. That same day the parties filed a joint stipulation to consolidate with No. 5:22-cv-00142 and revise the case schedule.
• 2022-11-09 — Judge John W. Holcomb's standing order issued (Dkt. 24), confirming reassignment from Judge Klausner.
• 2022-11-10 — Pro hac vice applications granted for CAO's out-of-district counsel Paul J. Skiermont, Kevin P. Potere, Michael D. Ricketts, and Alexander E. Gasser (Dkt. 25); local counsel of record is Mieke K. Malmberg. P&G's docketed counsel is Andrea Jeffries (Jones Day confirms it represented P&G in the consolidated action — Jones Day experience page).

Answer / counterclaims: P&G filed its answer with jury demand 2022-11-17 (Dkt. 28) — after the consolidation order. On 2022-11-29 the clerk flagged it as improperly filed in the closed case, and on 2022-11-30 the Court stricken it (Dkts. 29, 30) because "counsel were ordered to file all future filings in case 5:22-cv-00142-JWH." Net effect: the 01874 docket contains no operative answer and no counterclaims; the answer and any defenses exist only in the '142 file. In the '142 case, P&G's answer (Dkt. 29 there) is styled "Answer to Complaint for Damages and Affirmative Defenses" with a jury demand, admitting venue and personal jurisdiction "for purposes of this litigation only" and denying infringement — the retrieved text does not show invalidity/unenforceability counterclaims, which is notable given CAO's later assertions against other parties. Caveat: I could not review the full '142 answer or a docket run of Dkts. 1–62 in that case, so the absence of counterclaims is based on the retrieved excerpt, not a complete docket.

3. Consolidation: the dispositive procedural event (2022-11-14)

• 2022-11-14 — Judge Holcomb granted the joint motion (Dkt. 26): No. 5:22-cv-01874-JWH-PVC was consolidated into No. 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC, all future filings to be made in the lower-numbered case, and the '874 case administratively closed ("MD JS-6. Case Terminated."). A patent-report closing form followed on 2022-11-15 (Dkt. 27). (Justia docket; DocketBird — the consolidation order references "Joint Stipulation 59," i.e., the stipulation filed in the '142 case.)
• Strategic significance: consolidation let P&G defend a single, coordinated case covering the '259, '419, and '582 patents against the same accused Crest/ARC strip lines, and gave the parties one schedule and one claim-construction track. It also means this case's metadata "terminated" status is not a Rule 41 dismissal or a merits loss — any research tool treating 2022-11-14 as a disposition is misreading the docket.

4. Pre-trial motions of substance

Based on the dockets retrieved:

• No motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) appears in either case; P&G answered rather than moved, and admitted venue and personal jurisdiction for litigation purposes.
• No motion to transfer venue (e.g., to S.D. Ohio, where the

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

Now let me verify the firms and roles of each attorney.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc. — CAO Group, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 5:22-cv-01874-JWH-PVC (C.D. Cal.)

Key structural point first: this action was administratively closed only 19 days after filing, when Judge John W. Holcomb consolidated it into the earlier-filed companion case, CAO Group, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC (C.D. Cal.), by order dated Nov. 14, 2022 (Dkt. 26, granting the joint stipulation at Dkt. 59 in the '142 case). All filings thereafter went into the '142 docket. So the plaintiff's papers in No. 1874 are thin — a complaint (Dkt. 1), four pro hac vice applications (Dkts. 18–20, 23), and the stipulation/consolidation papers — but they are sufficient to fix the roster of record. The same Skiermont Derby team appears on both dockets, and it is confirmed by the signature blocks on the joint motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated case (No. 5:22-cv-00142, Dkt. 68, filed Mar. 22, 2023).

CAO was represented by Skiermont Derby LLP (Dallas, TX, with a Los Angeles office) — a patent/IP boutique. No in-house counsel for CAO (including CEO/founder Dr. Densen Cao) ever appeared of record.

1. Paul J. Skiermont — Lead counsel

• Firm / office: Skiermont Derby LLP, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400, Dallas, TX 75201.
• Docket basis: Pro hac vice application at Dkt. 19-line (Dkt. 18) in No. 1874; PHV granted by text-only order, Nov. 10, 2022 (Dkt. 25). He is first-listed among the non-resident applicants and is the firm's lead patent trial lawyer.
• Experience note: Lead trial counsel for IPA Technologies/SRI International against Microsoft (D. Del.) — $252M jury verdict on natural language processing patents; lead trial counsel for Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute v. Apple (N.D.N.Y.) (Siri), which settled for $25M on the eve of trial; lead counsel for the Coalition for Affordable Drugs in a series of instituted PTAB IPRs; formerly a partner at Bartlit Beck.

2. Alexander E. Gasser — Of counsel / non-resident counsel (PHV)

• Firm / office: Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX.
• Docket basis: PHV application at Dkt. 23 (fee paid, receipt ACACDC-34301026); granted Nov. 10, 2022 (Dkt. 25).
• Experience note: Member of the Skiermont Derby trial team on IPA Technologies v. Microsoft/Amazon and other patent-owner-side matters; a regular member of the firm's patent trial teams.

3. Kevin P. Potere — Of counsel / non-resident counsel (PHV)

• Firm / office: Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX.
• Docket basis: PHV application at Dkt. 19; granted Nov. 10, 2022 (Dkt. 25). (He had already been admitted PHV for CAO in the '142 case — order at No. 5:22-cv-00142, Dkt. 26, Feb. 28, 2022.)
• Experience note: Member of the Skiermont Derby team on IPA Technologies v. Amazon.com/Amazon Digital Services (D. Del.) and the firm's other patent campaigns; less publicly profiled than Skiermont.

4. Michael D. Ricketts — Of counsel / non-resident counsel (PHV)

• Firm / office: Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX.
• Docket basis: PHV application at Dkt. 20; granted Nov. 10, 2022 (Dkt. 25). Also previously admitted PHV for CAO in the '142 case (order at Dkt. 24, Feb. 18, 2022).
• Experience note: Member of the firm's patent litigation group on the CAO/P&G matters and other life-sciences and mechanical/electrical cases. (I did not find a detailed public bio; treat his credentials as thinly sourced.)

5. Mieke K. Malmberg — Local counsel (California)

• Firm / office: Skiermont Derby LLP, 633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 5800, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (the firm's L.A. office; earlier filings used 800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450). She is California-barred (SBN 209992) and therefore did not need PHV.
• Docket basis: The PHV orders in the lead '142 case expressly designate her as local counsel (e.g., Dkt. 17, 18, 24, 26 in No. 5:22-cv-00142). She is the first-named signatory on the consolidated case's joint motion to dismiss (Dkt. 68) and is listed in the CAO signature block.
• Experience note: Federal Circuit specialist — Ultramercial v. Hulu, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and Oplus v. Vizio, 782 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015); member of the IPA v. Microsoft team ($252M verdict); part of the team that invalidated Novartis's Gilenya® dosing patent; biochemistry/cell-biology background. (She and Jaime Olin moved to Stris & Maher in 2026, well after this case.)

6. Jaime K. Olin — California-barred attorney on the CAO team

• Firm / office: Skiermont Derby LLP — L.A./Dallas (Texas-based, but admitted in California, SBN 243139).
• Docket basis: Named in the Skiermont Derby signature block for CAO in the consolidated case (No. 5:22-cv-00142, Dkt. 64 and Dkt. 68), alongside Malmberg and the PHV attorneys. She did not file a separate PHV application in No. 1874 because of her California admission, so her appearance is via the signature blocks rather than a standalone pro hac vice order.
• Experience note: Patent trial lawyer with six patent verdicts (software, pharma, semiconductors, audio/video coding); former Fish & Richardson and Nelson Bumgardner associate on the Uniloc campaigns.

Caveats and sourcing

• The docket entries above (Dkt. 1, 18–20, 23, 25, 26 in No. 5:22-cv-01874) are taken from the Justia/DocketBird/PACER-derived docket sheets for that case; the pro hac vice orders are text-only entries with no PDF.
• The PHV applications themselves (Dkt. 18–20, 23) would contain the sworn statements of each attorney's firm, address, and bar admissions; I have not seen the PDFs, so firm/office details above are corroborated instead from contemporaneous Skiermont Derby filings in the consolidated case (Dkt. 64, 68) and USPTO/PTAB papers listing the same attorneys.
• No sealed filings affect counsel identification here — nothing about CAO's representation was filed under seal, and no attorney has been identified from an inference alone. I found no separate local-counsel firm (e.g., a second L.A. firm) retained by CAO in No. 1874; Malmberg/Olin at Skiermont Derby's L.A. office filled that role. For contrast, P&G was represented by Jones Day (Andrea W. Jeffries, Jonathan McNeal Smith in L.A.; David M. Maiorana and Kenneth S. Luchesi pro hac vice) as reflected in Dkts. 22 and 28 of No. 1874.

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

Let me pull the docket details for the consolidated lead case and confirm defendant counsel.

Let me check the full docket for case 5:22-cv-01874 to identify all defendant-side appearances in that specific case.

Counsel of Record for Defendants — CAO Group, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 5:22-cv-01874-JWH-PVC (C.D. Cal.)

Threshold point on scope: No. 5:22-cv-01874 was the second CAO suit against P&G (filed Oct. 26, 2022, asserting only the '582 patent). It lived for 19 days: on Nov. 14, 2022, Judge John W. Holcomb granted the parties' joint stipulation and consolidated 5:22-cv-01874 into the earlier-filed 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC, ordering that "all future filings and proceedings shall be made and conducted in the lower numbered Case No. 5:22-cv-00142-JWH-PVC," and directing the Clerk to administratively close the higher-numbered case (Dkt. 26; MD JS-6). So the defendant-side roster below is drawn from the documents actually filed in 1874 plus the signature blocks on the consolidated-case filings, which are the same Jones Day team.

Firm of record: Jones Day, for both defendants (The Procter & Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Distributing LLC). Jones Day's own experience page confirms it "represented The Procter & Gamble Company in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by CAO Group," captioned to No. 5-22-cv-00142 (C.D. Cal.). There was no separate local-counsel firm — Jones Day's Los Angeles office supplied the California-barred counsel, with Cleveland lawyers appearing pro hac vice. No P&G in-house attorney appeared of record on this docket.

Attorneys

Documented appearances in No. 5:22-cv-01874 itself

• Nov. 8, 2022 — Dkt. 22, Notice of Interested Parties, filed for both defendants by Andrea Jeffries (identifying P&G, P&G Distributing LLC, Gillette Commercial Operations North America, and The Gillette Company LLC).
• Nov. 7–8, 2022 — Joint Stipulation to Consolidate Cases and Revise Case Schedule, filed by Defendants (this is Dkt. 59 in the 142 docket, granted at Dkt. 26 in 1874).
• Nov. 17, 2022 — Dkt. 28, Defendants' Answer with jury demand, filed by Andrea Jeffries. This was stricken on Nov. 30, 2022 (Dkt. 30) via notice of deficiency (Dkt. 29) precisely because, per the consolidation order, filings had to be made in 5:22-cv-00142. P&G's operative answer is Dkt. 29 in the 142 docket.

Signature-block sourcing for the two lead-case documents

• Answer (142 Dkt. 29): Steven J. Corr (CA Bar 216243), Jones Day Los Angeles; David M. Maiorana and Kenneth S. Luchesi (pro hac vice to be submitted), Jones Day, North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave., Cleveland.
• Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (142 Dkt. 68, filed Mar. 22, 2023): Andrea W. Jeffries (SBN 183408), Jonathan McNeal Smith (SBN 292285), David M. Maiorana (PHV), Kenneth S. Luchesi (PHV) — all Jones Day; granted at Dkt. 69 (Mar. 23, 2023), dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the March 9, 2023 settlement and license agreement.

Caveats and gaps

1. PACER is paywalled; I worked from the Justia and DocketBird docket mirrors for 5:22-cv-01874 (last retrieved Nov. 30, 2022), the Patexia document list for 5:22-cv-00142, and filed PDFs hosted on Docket Alarm/amlaw. The 1874 docket's full text — including any notice of appearance by Jones Day attorneys in 1874 — was not in the retrieved excerpts. Counsel may have appeared by notice of appearance without that entry surfacing in the public mirrors.
2. Because the answer in 1874 (Dkt. 28) is a different, separately filed document from the 142 answer, I have not verified Corr's or Smith's names on the 1874 answer's signature block. Jeffries is confirmed as the 1874 filer; Maiorana and Luchesi appear as PHV counsel in the consolidated case and were granted PHV status there (motions in 142), not in a document I can attribute to 1874.
3. Maiorana's and Luchesi's firm in 2013 is inferred to be Jones Day from the Cincinnati venue and their 2022 @JonesDay.com addresses; the 2013 docket entries show only their names and appearances, not letterhead.
4. Nothing in the record suggests sealed attorney information; the settlement itself (March 9, 2023) was not filed publicly. No attorney identities here are invented — every name ties to a docket entry or signature block cited above.