Friday, January 25, 2013

Design Patent Roundup – Week Ending January 25, 2013


This week brings us three new design patent cases, two of which concern design patents for apparel.  The first case deals with a design patent for a shapewear garment designed to remedy so-called “bingo arms.”  Although such garments may have functional aspects, prior shapewear design patent cases have yielded surprising results.  See, e.g., Maidenform v. Yummie Tummie.  The second deals with apparel of the K-9 variety and pits one dog collar maker against another.  


Place your bets after the jump!

R and A Synergy, LLC et al v. IdeaVillage Products Corp. et al, No. 1:13-cv-00130 (N.D. OH. January 18, 2013).

On January 18, Idea Village (among others) was sued for design patent infringement by R & A Synergy and its licensee, Magic Tap.  The complaint alleges that a garment product called “Amazing Arms” infringes R & A’s Design Patent Nos. 646,869 and 663,925, both entitled “Garment.”  Given that the garments at issue appear to be shapewear garments, functionality will likely be a central issue in this case.  The case has been assigned to Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.  R & A is represented by Fay Sharpe, LLP.  Below is a figure from the ‘869 Patent alongside an image of a garment from www.getamazingarms.com, which was referenced in the complaint:



R & A Synergy v. IdeaVillage
   Infringement
   No Infringement
   Too Close to Call

Powered by StatPac survey software

Lightstream, Inc. v. Atomic Products, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-00050 (D. WI. January 23, 2013)
On January 23, Plaintiff Lightstream filed a patent infringement complaint against Atomic Products (dba Visiglo), accusing Visiglo of infringing one utility patent and its Design Patent No. 457,299 for an “Electro-Luminescent Welt.”  Lightstream accuses Visiglo of selling certain “dog collars that include mountable electroluminescent welts,” in violation of Lightstream’s design patent.  The case has been assigned to Judge William M. Conley.  Lightstream is represented by Mann Law Group and Whitaker Law Group.  Below is a figure from the ‘299 Patent alongside an image of the Visiglo dog collar, as shown in the complaint:




Lightstream v. Atomic
   Infringement
   No Infringement
   Too Close to Call


OraLabs, Inc. v. The Kind Group LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00170 (D. Colo. January 24, 2013)

On January 24, Plaintiff OraLabs filed a declaratory judgment complaint against The Kind Group, seeking a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity of The Kind Group’s Design Patent No. 644,939 for a “Spherically-Shaped Lip Balm.”  At issue is OraLab’s Chap-Ice® line of products including a new product known as Chap-Ice® Lip Revolution.  Apparently OraLabs filed this complaint after receiving a cease and desist letter from The Kind Group on January 18.  The case has been assigned to Judge Philip Brimmer.  Oralabs is represented by Sheridan Ross P.C.  Below is a figure from the ‘939 Patent alongside an image of OraLab’s Chap-Ice® Lip Revolution product, as shown in The Kind Group’s cease and desist letter:



OraLabs v. The Kind Group
   Infringement
   No Infringement
   Too Close to Call

Powered by StatPac survey software

No comments :

Post a Comment