We are catching up on two weeks
of design patent filings today, so there are several new cases. As always, we will continue to monitor the
dockets for the below cases and provide any noteworthy updates. Please take a look at the designs and
products at issue after the jump and let us know what you think in the comments
section.
Exhart Environmental Systems Inc
v. Bel Air Lighting Inc, No. 2:12-cv-09471-GW (C. D. Cal, Nov. 5, 2012)
Plaintiff Exhart Environmental
Systems Inc filed suit against Bel Air Lighting Inc alleging infringement of
U.S. Design Patent Nos. D464,685, D464,383, D497,653, D465,249, and D492,220
for novelties (see below). Exhart’s
offering of products includes decorative home and garden items. In addition,
Exhart alleges infringement of Utility U.S. Patent No. 6,599,160 and
infringement of numerous U.S. Copyright Registrations. The case has been assigned to Judge George H
Wu. Examples of the asserted patents and the accused products are shown below:
Ever Win Int’l. Corp. v. CVS Corp., No. 2:12-cv-09594 (C.D. Ca. Nov. 8, 2012)
Plaintiff Ever Win filed suit against CVS alleging infringement
of U.S. Design Patent No. 624,501 for a “Dual USB Active Cigarette Lighter
Adapter Plug.” Ever Win accuses CVS’s
“Duracell Dual Mini USB Car Charger, Model No. DU6117.” Below is a comparison of the ‘501 Patent with
the accused product as it appears on the internet:
The case has been assigned to
Judge Audrey B. Collins. Ever Win is
represented by Frisenda Quinton & Nicholson. CVS has not yet entered an appearance.
Elaut, N.V. v. Ocean Amusement
Mach. Co., Ltd., No. 6:12-cv-1698 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2012)
Plaintiff Elaut filed suit
against Ocean Amusement alleging infringement of one utility patent and U.S.
Design Patent No. 638,479 for a “Portion of a Game Cabinet.” Elaut accuses certain “game machines”
allegedly offered for sale by Ocean Amusement.
Below is a comparison of the ‘479 Patent with the accused game machine
as it appears on the internet:
The case has been assigned to
Judge John Antoon II. Elaut is
represented by McDermott Will & Emery.
Ocean Amusement has not yet entered an appearance.
OfficeMax, Inc. v. Wang, d/b/a
Arctic Accessories and Frontal Group Private, Ltd., et al v., No.
1:12-cv-09157 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2012)
Plaintiffs OfficeMax and OMX,
Inc. filed suit against Arctic alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent No.
572,755 for a “Marker and Cap.” OfficeMax accuses Arctic’s “Architect Stylus”
for Apple’s iPad and other electronic tablets.
Interestingly, the ‘755 Patent is depicted as covering a traditional pen
and cap. Below is a comparison of the
‘755 Patent and Arctic’s stylus as it appears in the Complaint:
The case has been assigned to
Judge John W. Darrah. OfficeMax is
represented by Edwards Wildman Palmer.
Arctic has not yet entered an appearance.
Laughing Rabbit, Inc. v.
Dealextreme, No. 2:12-cv-01957 (W.D. Wash. November 7, 2012)
Plaintiff Laughing Rabbit, Inc.
(doing business as LRI) filed a complaint against Dealextreme, operating a
website www.dealextreme.com out of
Hong Kong. The complaint alleges unfair or deceptive practices, false
designation of origin, trademark infringement of the Photon® mark and
infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. 375,372 for a “Pocket Flashlight.”
According to its website, “DealExtreme.com
is the next generation of online shopping center,” offering “a large selection
of gadgets at very attractive prices.” The complaint alleges Dealextreme
directly infringing and inducing infringement by others of the ‘372 patent by
importing, selling and offering to sell an LED flashlight shown below:
The case has not been assigned to
a judge. Laughing Rabbit, Inc. is represented by Lower Graham Jones. There is no counsel of record for Dealextreme
as of yet.
Carlini Enterprises Inc et al v.
Torch Industries LLC et al., No. 8:12-cv-01913-JVS-RNB (C.D. Cal, Nov. 5 ,
2012)
Plaintiff Carlini Enterprises
(dba Carlini Design) and Anthony “T.J.” Carlini, president of Carlini Design
filed a complaint against Torch Industries LLC., Justin Coleman and Keith Perry
alleging infringement of its Design Patent No. D629,343 for a “handlebar.”
Carlini Enterprises designs and sells aftermarket products for Harley Davidson
motorcycles. Torch Industries is also a
manufacturer and retailer of aftermarket parts for Harley Davidson motorcycles.
Keith Perry and Justin Coleman, according to the complaint, are officers or
general managers of Torch Industries.
According to the complaint, the patent covers the “Evil Ape” handlebars
produced and sold by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and
damages. The case has been assigned to Judge James V. Selna. Carlini Enterprises and Anthony “T.J.” Carlini are represented by Becky Vanderhoof
Christensen. The ’343 patent and the accused product are shown below:
Petjamas LLC v. Jordan Drew
Corporation et al., 3-12-cv-02708- WQH (S.D. Cal, Nov. 5, 2012)
Plaintiffs Petjamas LLC filed
suit against Jordan Drew Corporation and SAS GROUP, INC. alleging infringement
of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D670,123, D670,121, D649,823 and D660,069 for
ornamental designs for pillowcases (see below).
According to the complaint, Defendants advertise competing pillow covers
on the Internet at http://www.myhuggypets.com/. Below is a screen shot from the Defendant’s
website.
|
|
|
|
|
Alliance Sports Group v. LB
Marketing, No. 3- 2:12-cv-01044-EJF (D. Utah, Nov. 8, 2012)
Plaintiff Alliance Sports filed
suit against LB Marketing alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent No.
D659,869 for a “Flashlight” (see below).
According to the complaint, Alliance Sports sells a flashlight currently
marketed under its REDLINE® brand.
Defendants have marketed and sold a flashlight product that is shown
below. The complaint further asserts
that DOES 1-10, retailers and/or manufacturers of accused devices, have acted
in concert with Alliance Sports in making, using, selling, offering to sell,
and/or importing in the United States LB Marketing’s flashlight products.
Alliance Sports further asserts unfair competition and unjust enrichment. The case has been assigned to Magistrate
Judge Evelyn J. Furse. The ’869 patent and the accused product are shown below:
|
|
I think this week's design patent cases are evenly split between likely infringements and likely non-infringements. Feel free to comment only any likely infringers...
ReplyDelete