Friday, January 18, 2013

Design Patent Roundup – Week Ending January 18, 2013

This was a slow week for new design patent cases, which may signal a slow-down in new complaints.  We will see in the coming weeks whether this trend continues or whether it is an anomaly of the holiday season.  Also, we have added a polling feature this week so please share your opinion on infringement vs. noninfringement!

Carson Optical, Inc.v. Electro-Optix, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-01625 (E.D.N.Y. January 11, 2013)

On January 11, Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiffs Electro-Optix and Christopher Schoenjohn filed its Answer and Counterclaims claiming noninfringement and invalidity of Plaintiff Carson’s Design Patent Nos. 495,726 for an “Illuminating Magnifier” and 583,843 for a “Bottle Indicia Magnifier.”  In its original complaint, Carson accused Electro’s RM-2.5 illuminated magnifier of infringing the ‘726 Design Patent, and Electro’s RX-2 Magnifier of infringing the ‘834 Design Patent.  A comparison of the design patent and the accused products, as they appear in the complaint, is shown below:

 Carson v. Electro 1 free polls

 Carson v. Electro 2 free polls 

Crorey Creations, Inc. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-10183 (E.D.M.I. January 16, 2013)

On January 16, Plaintiff Crorey Creations filed a complaint against Cracker Barrel accusing Cracker Barrel of infringing two utility patent and its Design Patent No. 619,150, which claims a “Friendship Bracelet Maker.”  Crorey accuses Cracker Barrel’s “Friendship Bracelet Fashion Studio,” which is shown below alongside a figure from the ‘150 Design Patent.

Crorey v. Cracker Barrel free polls 

OurPet’s Co. v. Petmate, No. 1:13-cv-00111 (N.D.OH. January 16, 2013)

On January 16, Plaintiff OurPet filed a complaint against Petmate accusing Petmate of infringing its Design Patent No. 467,045, which claims a “Stackable Pet Feeder.”  OurPet accuses Petmate’s “Easy Reach Pet Diner,” which is shown below alongside a figure from the ‘045 Design Patent.  In the author's opinion, the asserted design and the accused product are not very similar.

No comments :

Post a Comment