Alticor/Amway/Quixtar
Sued for Patent Infringement

According to Mr. James Sobieraj, Alticor's attorney from Brinks Hoffer, "TTI’s lawsuit was filed in response in a different venue that TTI apparently felt was more favorable."   Alticor's was filed in its home town of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and TTI had filed in Delaware where it had already won a jury trial against Mary Kay for infringement of the same patents.

The TTI suit noted that to date several of the largest manufacturers and/or marketers in the cosmetics industry have entered into license agreements with TTI, including without limitation, Avon, Chesebrough Pond's, Elizabeth Arden, Allergan, Beiersdorf Inc., L'Oreal, Chanel, Neoteric Cosmetics, Inc. and Erno Laszlo.  According to Mr. Sobieraj, "a number of cosmetic companies were sued by TTI before they entered into a license agreement."

The Federal Courts Data Base, Pacer, reported that TTI still had open suits against Mary Kay, Milbar Laboratories, Beauty Underneath, and Pierre Fabre S.A. 

The TTI suit states that Alticor/Amway/Quixtar/Access Business Group have "continued to refuse to recognize the TTI Patents and have willfully and deliberately infringed on the TTI Patents".  According to the Alticor complaint, Tristrata has sued at least twenty different companies, alleging infringement of at least one or more of the Tristrata Patents. 

Alticor denied that any of their skin care products infringe any valid claim of any of the Tristrata Patents.  Alticor's complaint mentioned TTI's jury trial against Mary Kay and noted a threat by TTI:  "TTI is diligently enforcing its patents and is putting you on notice that your continued infringement of these patents will result in litigation".

As of Feb. 6, 2006, Alticor had not answered the suit and has filed numerous extensions for their answer.  The TTI vs. Alticor case was closed on Feb 7, 2006.  The Alticor vs. TTI case was closed on Feb 8, 2006.  The court docket showed no answer from Quixtar concerning the claims.   According  Sobieraj, Alticor's attorney, "TTI and Amway jointly requested extensions so that they could have more time to negotiate a settlement instead of driving up litigation expenses, that the parties did settle, and TTI’s claims were dismissed."  

The jury trial against Mary Kay in Delaware was held on March 16, 2005.  On March 31, 2006 a final judgement against Mary Kay of $26,359,000 was handed out.  Mary Kay is appealing.

According to Mr. Sobieraj "many large companies, like Microsoft, IBM and Hewlett-Packard, have been affected by this trend  (increasing number of Patent Lawsuits) and have been sued for patent infringement more than two times per year recently".

Mr. Sobieraj stated that  "Amway has made a substantial investment in intellectual property clearance and enforcement (of its own patents) which has produced a record in patent infringement matters that most companies of its size would envy."

This is not the first time Amway has been sued for Patent infringement.  Inventor James Dyson sued Amway for copying his bagless vacuum cleaner design in 1987.  According to Dyson's book, Amway later entered into a licensing agreement with Dyson.  

Dyson started marketing his vacuum cleaner in the US in 2002, which is about the time Amway/Quixtar stopped selling the Amway "Clear Trak" vacuum cleaner, which retailed for $899.  You can buy a Dyson vacuum for about $400 online, not including shipping.