The complaint
The case is Conair LLC v. Tre Milano, LLC d/b/a InStyler, No. 8:26-cv-02964 (C.D. Cal.), filed October 8, 2026, ECF No. 1, with a jury demand. Conair says it is a Delaware limited liability company based in Stamford, Connecticut, and that it sells hair curling appliances covered by the patents. It alleges that under a June 3, 2011 patent license agreement with the patents' owner, a company in Birmingham, England, as amended, it is the exclusive licensee with all substantial rights and standing to sue in its own name. The complaint says Tre Milano is a California limited liability company based in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, and pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) because Tre Milano resides in the district.
The patents and the accused product
The complaint asserts U.S. Patent 10,238,196, issued March 26, 2019, and U.S. Patent 11,350,719, issued June 7, 2022, a continuation of the '196 patent's application; both are titled Hair Styling Aid. It accuses the InStyler Tulip Auto Curler and says discovery may reveal more products.
Claim 1 of the '196 patent covers a hair styling aid with a handle and a connected housing that has a chamber for receiving and retaining hair, a guide formed by a slot in the housing wall that runs the full length of the chamber, an elongate member at least partly in the housing, a rotatable element beside the elongate member that turns clockwise and anticlockwise to wind hair around it, a motor that drives the element in both directions, and at least one heating element for the chamber, with the rotatable element having two hair-pushing surfaces, one for each direction. Claim 1 of the '719 patent covers a hair styling aid with a housing, a guide slot in the housing wall parallel to the housing's long axis, a rotatable element selectively rotatable in either direction to form clockwise or anticlockwise curls, a heated elongate member around which the hair is wound, a chamber between the housing and the elongate member, and a housing integral with a handle, where the rotatable element turns relative to the elongate member and automatically returns to a predefined starting position after use.
What the lawsuit alleges
Count I alleges that the InStyler Auto Curler products literally and directly infringe at least claims 1 through 3 and 7 through 10 of the '719 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), and Count II alleges literal and direct infringement of at least claims 1 through 6, 9 through 11, 13, 14, and 16 through 21 of the '196 patent, each walking through claim 1 element by element with product images. Each count alleges deliberate, intentional, and willful infringement after knowledge of the patent, and compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. 287, by marking or actual notice. The prayer asks for judgments of infringement and that the patents are valid and enforceable, a permanent injunction, damages with interest, enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, and an exceptional-case finding with attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285.
What to watch next
Watch for Tre Milano's answer or first motion, and any challenge to the willfulness allegations. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.