CAO Group, Inc. v. Walmart Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

Key finding: this is a teeth-whitening strip case (Equate brand), not LED. Let me dig deeper into the patents, the stay, and the manufacturer suit.

Now let me verify the "Manufacturer Suit" (likely Ranir/Perrigo) and check for IPR activity on the patent family.

Case Overview — CAO Group, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00175-DAK (D. Utah)

The parties. CAO Group, Inc. is a small Utah operating company headquartered at 4628 West Skyhawk Drive, West Jordan, Utah, founded in 2000 by Dr. Densen Cao, a materials-science Ph.D. out of the University of Utah and a named inventor on well over 100 patents. CAO is a genuine product company, not an NPE: it commercialized the first LED dental curing light, a compact diode soft-tissue laser, forensic light sources (UltraLite ALS), and — critically here — its own whitening-strip line, "Sheer White!", sold through caogroup.com and authorized distributor Henry Schein. Its LED lighting division was spun off into a wholly owned subsidiary, CAO Lighting, Inc., in 2013, which ran a separate decade-long LED-lighting assertion campaign against GE, OSRAM, Signify, Feit and others. CAO's co-inventor on the patents here, chemist Steven D. Jensen, is a longtime CAO employee. Walmart Inc. is the Bentonville, Arkansas retailer, sued in its capacity as the seller of the accused private-label Equate products — that supplier relationship is what drives the case's unusual procedural arc. (CAO v. Signify complaint; CAO v. Karaka complaint)

The accused products and the patents. The accused products are Walmart's store-brand peroxide whitening strips — Equate Ultra White, Equate Timeless White, and Equate Professional Whitening Strips — which CAO alleged infringe at least claim 1 of each of five patents. All five are a single continuation family titled "Peroxide Gel Composition," share a substantively identical specification, name Jensen and Cao as co-inventors, and claim priority to February 8, 2006: (1) US 10,603,259 (issued Mar. 31, 2020; app. 15/488,293) — a dental bleaching device with a flexible planar backing strip and a "gelatinous, non-coalescent, visco-elastic" dental composition of a peroxide bleaching agent, a solvent, and poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) or PVP; (2) US 10,646,419 (app. 15/627,906) — same family, same strip-plus-dried-gel architecture; (3) US 11,219,582 (issued Jan. 11, 2022; app. 16/784,582) — same family, emphasizing the composition flexing/conforming without cracking; (4) US 11,826,444 (issued Nov. 28, 2023; app. 17/659,473) — adds the express limitation that the gel is "dried to an extent that it no longer remains in a state of fluidity"; and (5) US 11,826,445 (issued Nov. 28, 2023; app. 18/049,843) — non-fluid gelatinous composition on a flexible backing, conformable after removal from packaging. The technical through-line is a shelf-stable, high-peroxide, non-flowing gel film that adheres to teeth and doesn't crack when the strip flexes — the claimed advance over wet gels and two-part kits. Note: some litigation databases (e.g., Patsnap) mis-list US 10,602,259 in this docket as a TWS-earphone patent assigned to a Chinese e-commerce company; that is a data artifact — the complaint and the parallel Ranir declaratory-judgment action both confirm the '259 patent at issue is the peroxide-gel patent. I found no record of any IPR or PGR against this family, but I was unable to complete a full PTAB docket check, so treat that as unverified rather than as a confirmed absence.

Procedural posture and why the venue mattered. CAO filed on March 5, 2024 in the District of Utah, Central Division (Salt Lake City), assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball with referral to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead; the docket carried PATENT, JURY, and later STAYED flags. CAO's Utah counsel were Brian E. Lahti and Jonathan A. Helfgott of Lahti Helfgott LLC; Walmart was represented by local counsel John W. Huber alongside Greenberg Traurig lawyers Scott J. Bornstein, Julie Bookbinder, Jonathan P. Presvelis, Robert Michael Azzi and Nicholas Peterson, all admitted pro hac vice in April–June 2024. Walmart answered with a jury demand on April 29, 2024 (Dkt. 14) and filed its Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 18). The case then went through three scheduling orders — a First Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt., July 12, 2024), a Second Amended pre-claim-construction order setting fact discovery to close March 3, 2025 and amended pleadings/joinder by September 10, 2024, and a Third Amended order (Aug. 5, 2024) — all before any Markman briefing, which never occurred. On August 19, 2024, the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay pending resolution of the "Manufacturer Suit" (Dkt. 39), which Judge Kimball granted the next day (Dkt. 40). That manufacturer suit is ** Ranir LLC v. CAO Group Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00498-RJS (D. Utah, filed July 16, 2024, Judge Robert J. Shelby)** — Ranir, a Grand Rapids, Michigan private-label oral-care manufacturer and indirect wholly owned Perrigo subsidiary, is the actual maker of the Equate strips and sued first for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity on all five patents. Utah was the natural forum for CAO (its home district, with Local Patent Rules and a comparatively manageable docket) and it is where Ranir chose to file its DJ action too, effectively neutralizing any argument that CAO had picked a plaintiff-friendly forum. The Walmart case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on July 30, 2025, "with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees," each side expressly waiving any claim for costs or fees — a clean walk-away with no license, no consent judgment, and no public claim-construction or validity ruling. (D. Utah docket via Docket Alarm; DocketBird; Docket 40 stay order; Ranir DJ complaint)

Why the case is notable. First, it is a supply-chain pressure case rather than a merits case: the Ranir complaint quotes a June 6, 2023 email from Dr. Cao to Ranir naming "Walmart Equate Whitening Strips, Walgreen Whitening Strips, CVS Whitening Strips, Kroger Whitening Strips, Amazon Basic Whitening Strips, and others" and demanding an "amicable resolution" by July 15, 2023, and then describes follow-on demand letters to CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Albertsons, Target and Meijer in May 2024. CAO's pattern was to sue the retailer (a customer) to pressure the manufacturer; Ranir's DJ action then flipped the battlefield onto the real technical disputes — whether Ranir's two-step melt-extruded OCL process (PVP/PEG/Eudragit film, later activated with hydrogen peroxide) practices the claimed "drying" step, and whether Ranir's 2002-era formulation anticipates the 2006-priority family. Notably, Walmart's own dispute is resolved, but the Ranir action and its invalidity theories were the real fight; my sources indicate that case also closed without a public merits ruling, though I could not fully confirm its termination terms. Second, the patents have a very short remaining runway — the family's estimated expiry is February 8, 2026 (20 years from the 2006 priority date) — which materially explains why a stipulation with no payment or license surfaced in mid-2025 rather than a trial: the leverage was expiring. Third, the case is a window into CAO's much more aggressive parallel campaign in the Northern District of Illinois, where it filed Schedule A mass-defendant suits against online whitening-strip sellers (CAO Group v. Individuals Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:24-cv-01211, Judge Thomas M. Durkin), obtained ex parte TROs freezing defendants' Amazon/eBay/Walmart accounts, and won a $1.65 million default judgment against Zhuhai Jiashu (d/b/a GD-Whitening) — a $500,000 reasonable royalty plus $50,000 in transaction costs, trebled — relief that drew substantial briefing attacking the asset freeze and § 299-style joinder as "the nuclear weapon of the law" used for "extortive settlement leverage." Fourth, CAO separately asserted the same five patents against Procter & Gamble's Crest 3D Whitestrips franchise (a product line alleged to generate $200M+ in annual U.S. sales) and against Karaka LLC/The DoubleY Brands over Boka whitening

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

Good initial picture. Let me dig into the full docket and the parallel proceedings.

Now let me check Walmart's answer/counterclaims and PTAB activity on these patents.

CAO Group, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00175 (D. Utah) — Litigation Timeline & Outcome

Bottom line: This was a short, stay-dominated case. It was filed 2024-03-05, answered without motion practice, and then parked by a stipulated stay on 2024-08-20 pending the manufacturer's declaratory-judgment suit (Ranir LLC v. CAO Group, No. 2:24-cv-00498-RJS, D. Utah). It never reached claim construction, never had a substantive contested motion, and ended on 2025-07-30 with a self-effectuating Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees — the same day and on the same basis as the Ranir case. No PTAB IPR/PGR was identified on any of the five asserted patents.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2024-03-05 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). CAO Group, Inc. (Utah) sued Walmart Inc. in the District of Utah, Central Division, asserting infringement of five patents in a single "PEROXIDE GEL COMPOSITION" family:

Complaint exhibits A–F were the '259, '419, '582, an "Approval of Correction" (a PTO certificate-of-correction document), the '444, and the '445. Jury demand by plaintiff. Assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball, referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead. Case flags included PATENT, JURY, MAG, ACCO, (b)(1)(A), and later STAYED.

• Docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Utah_District_Court/2--24-cv-00175/CAO_Group_Inc_v._Walmart_Inc/
• Docket sheet: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cao-Group-Inc-v-Walmart-Inc/utd-2:2024-cv-00175

The accused products were Equate-brand whitening strips — Equate Professional Whitening Strips, Equate Timeless White Whitening Strips, and Equate Ultra White Whitening Strips (Patsnap case record: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cao-group-v-walmart-teeth-whitening-patent-dispute-patsnap/).

Strategic context. The Walmart suit was one front in a much broader CAO enforcement campaign against store-brand/private-label whitening strips. In the parallel Ranir DJ complaint, CAO's conduct is described: a June 6, 2023 email from Dr. Densen Cao to Ranir asserting that Walmart Equate, Walgreens, CVS, Kroger, and Amazon Basics strips infringed the '259, '419, and '582 patents; demand letters to Walmart, CVS, Kroger, Meijer, Walgreens, and Target; a second round of letters in late May 2024 to CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, Albertsons, Target, and Meijer; and contemporaneous Schedule A e-commerce litigation in the N.D. Ill. (No. 1:24-cv-01211, filed 2024-02-12, with a TRO sought 2024-03-01). Ranir's complaint ¶¶ 65–72, Ex. M: https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utd.[149468](/patent/149468)/gov.uscourts.utd.149468.1.0.pdf

2024-03-22 — Dkt. 11: Notice of appearance of Nicholas Peterson for Walmart.
2024-03-26 — Dkts. 12–13: Walmart's stipulated motion to extend its response deadline (from 2024-03-28) by 30 days; granted by Magistrate Judge Pead, answer due 2024-04-29.

2024-04-29 — Dkt. 14: Walmart's Answer, with jury demand. Notably, the docket text reads only "ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand re CAO Group's Complaint for Patent Infringement" — it does not carry the "COUNTERCLAIM against…" text that the same firm's filings do elsewhere (compare Ranir, Dkt. 13, whose text reads "ANSWER … COUNTERCLAIM against Ranir LLC filed by CAO Group Inc."). So on the face of the public docket, Walmart pleaded invalidity/non-infringement as defenses but did not assert counterclaims. Caveat: I could not retrieve the body of Dkt. 14, so the affirmative defenses and the precise invalidity theories are unverified; the lack of a docketed counterclaim is an inference from docket text.

Same day: D

I'll research CAO Group's counsel of record in this D. Utah action.

Good start. Now let me verify the complaint's counsel block, Helfgott's pro hac vice status, and any additional plaintiff attorneys.

Now let me confirm the complaint's signature block and check for any additional plaintiff appearances (including in-house counsel).

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff CAO Group, Inc., CAO Group, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00175-DAK (D. Utah)

CAO used a two-lawyer boutique, not a large firm and not a dedicated in-house legal department. Both attorneys are from Lahti Helfgott LLC, a Salt Lake City / Denver litigation shop; the Utah-licensed partner anchored the case locally and the second attorney — who was not a member of the D. Utah bar — was admitted pro hac vice two months after filing.

Docket basis

• ECF No. 1 (3/5/2024) — Complaint; docket text attributes the filing to CAO Group Inc., and Lahti's signature appears on CAO's later filings (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 9), consistent with his being counsel of record from inception.
• ECF No. 2 (3/5/2024) — PHV notice directed to Helfgott, confirming he was listed on the complaint caption but was not Utah-admitted.
• ECF No. 23 (5/5/2024) — "MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jonathan A. Helfgott … filed by Plaintiff CAO Group Inc."; order granting signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball, 5/6/2024.
• Dockets: Justia; DocketBird; UniCourt; Docket Alarm.
• Corroboration of the two-name plaintiff roster: Patsnap's case record lists plaintiff counsel as "Brian E. Lahti · Jonathan A. Helfgott, Firm: Lahti Helfgott, LLC" (Patsnap case page); Law360's attorney page for Helfgott lists "March 05, 2024 CAO Group Inc v. Walmart Inc., Utah — Patent | Utah" (Law360), and Law360's Lahti page lists him at Magleby Cataxinos with a CAO Lighting N.D. Ill. patent case in 2017 (Law360).

Caveats and open items

• No in-house CAO counsel appeared. The public docket shows only these two attorneys for the plaintiff. Dr. Densen Cao (CAO's founder/CEO and a named inventor) is a party principal, not counsel of record, and I found no evidence he is a lawyer.
• No third outside firm appeared for CAO in this docket. Notably, in CAO's later/parallel matters the company added other counsel, but those attorneys are not part of this case: e.g., Andrew C. [surname truncated in the source] appears for CAO in a 2025 patent complaint captioned in D. Del. (CAO Group v. Ivoclar, No. 1:25-cv-01430), and CAO's N.D. Ill. Schedule A cases were handled by separate counsel. It would be an error to list them as counsel here.
• I could not retrieve the body of ECF No. 1, so the exact caption block (which may have listed additional PHV applicants who never appeared) is unverified; the roster above is built from docket entries, PHV activity, and the Patsnap/Law360 attorney records, which agree.
• The dismissal stipulation (7/30/2025) was almost certainly signed by Lahti as Utah counsel of record, but I did not retrieve the signature page; treat the signatory as inferred rather than confirmed.
• Firm history wrinkle: Law360 associates Lahti with Magleby Cataxinos (a Salt Lake City IP firm) for earlier matters, while the 2024–25 CAO filings and the State Bar/Super Lawyers listings use Lahti Helfgott LLC at 299 S. Main St., Suite 1300. He appears to have moved to his own firm before this case; Lahti Helfgott is a small boutique, so there is no separate "of counsel" or staff-attorney layer on this docket.
• Strategic note for the write-up: the plaintiff-side team was thin (two lawyers) relative to Walmart's six-attorney Greenberg Traurig/Warner Norcross defense team — a staffing asymmetry consistent with CAO's volume-play enforcement model (suing retailers and Schedule A e-commerce sellers in many forums at once) rather than a bet-the-company trial. Lahti's dual role here and in Ranir also confirms that CAO treated the Walmart and Ranir matters as a single coordinated front.

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

Good leads. Let me verify firm affiliations and individual roles.

Now let me verify the remaining defense attorneys' firms and roles, and check the full docket for any additional appearances.

Counsel of Record — Walmart Inc., CAO Group, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00175-DAK (D. Utah)

Six attorneys appeared for Walmart. All were from Greenberg Traurig LLP except Robert Michael Azzi, whose firm affiliation the record in the related Utah case lists as Warner Norcross + Judd LLP. The defense ran a classic split: a New York–based national patent trial team admitted pro hac vice, plus a Salt Lake City local-counsel anchor in Greenberg Traurig's Utah office who signed the Answer and all stipulated filings.

Docket basis

• Notices of appearance / PHV: ECF Nos. 10 (Huber), 11 (Peterson), 15–17 (Presvelis, Bookbinder, Bornstein motions), 20–22 (orders granting), 29 (Azzi motion, granted 6/24/2024).
• Pleadings signed: ECF No. 12 (stipulated extension; deadline moved to 4/29/2024), ECF No. 14 (Answer + jury demand), ECF No. 18 (Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying no corporate parent).
• Docket sources: Justia docket; DocketBird docket sheet; UniCourt.

Qualifications and caveats

• No in-house Walmart counsel appeared on the public docket; the appearance list is limited to the six outside attorneys above. Nothing suggests a Walmart legal-department lawyer entered an appearance.
• No sealed filings affecting counsel: the appearances and PHV orders are public. (The case carried a "STAYED" flag and the parties litigated under the court's local patent rules, but the docket activity relevant to counsel is unsealed.)
• Lead-counsel characterization is inferential. The docket does not designate a "lead" attorney; I have identified Bornstein as lead based on (a) his being the highest-ranking GT partner admitted, (b) the sequencing of PHV motions, and (c) GT's own practice of describing him as lead counsel on its Walmart/retailer patent matters. Huber functioned as the attorney of record who actually signed the Answer, consistent with D. Utah's local-counsel requirement.
• Firm/office for Presvelis and Azzi is the weakest link in this list: PACER's Utah entries omit firm and city, and my verification searches for both were cut off. Azzi's Warner Norcross affiliation comes from the counsel listing in Ranir LLC v. CAO Group (No. 2:24-cv-00498), not from a filing caption in this case.
• Context worth flagging for the case write-up: the same Greenberg Traurig team (Huber, Peterson, Bookbinder) simultaneously represented Ranir LLC — the Walmart supplier — in Ranir's July 2024 declaratory-judgment action against CAO on the identical five patents ('259, '419, '582, '444, '445). Both cases were dismissed with prejudice on the same day, July 30, 2025, by self-effectuating Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulations, strongly indicating a single global resolution covering Walmart's Equate whitening strips and the broader private-label strip market. That parallel representation is the most probative evidence of the defense team's substantive role here, since this case itself never reached claim construction.