Friday, February 21, 2014

Design Patent Roundup - Feb. 21, 2014

It has been an active week for asserting design patent claims.

Turbo Style Products, LLC v., Inc., No. 2-14-cv-00125 (D. Utah Feb. 20, 2014)

If you blinked, then perhaps you missed Turbo Style Products’ Complaint asserting that is infringing two design patents it holds for car headlight “eyelash” accessories, as pictured below. Turbo Style filed a lawsuit accusing of infringing two U.S. design patents, D672917 and D675776, each titled “Headlight Accessory.” In particular, the Complaint asserts both direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and contributory infringement under § 271(c), but notably not induced infringement under § 271(b). The Complaint also included causes of action for trade dress infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and common law. Turbo Style is represented by Andrew Stavros and Austin Egan of Stavros Law. The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead.

The Gillette Company v. SD Blades et al, No. 1-14-cv-00153 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2014)

Turning from eyelashes to whiskers, Gillette asserted 6 different design patents related to razor blade cartridges and containers in a complaint against SD Blades. The patents at suit are D422751, D430023, D440874, D531518, D533684, and D604904. They relate to the design for such popular razors and razor blade cartridges, such as the Mach® and Venus® lines. A figure of a razor cartridge from the ‘684 patent is shown below. Gillette asserts direct infringement under § 271(a) and induced infringement under § 271(b). While Gillette, unlike Turbo Style, has not included as a party, the complaint centers on Gillette’s assertion that, “the SD Blades ‘Storefront’ on is part of an offering that allows third-party sellers to use’s website infrastructure to offer products for sale over the Internet…through which consumers purchase razor cartridges, dispensers for razor cartridges, and containers that infringe upon Gillette’s intellectual property and design patent rights.” Gillette is represented by Karen Kreider Gaunt and Tammy Imhoff of Dinsmore and Shohl. The case has been assigned to District Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Ames True Temper, Inc. v. Suncast Corp., 1-14-cv-00284 (M.D. Penn Feb. 18, 2014)

Perhaps the winter weather has caused tempers to flare. Ames True Temper is asserting its design patent D557101, titled, “D-Grip for Tool,” against Suncast. Accusing Suncast’s “Centerforce” snow shovel of infringing the design rights. Below is a side-by-side comparison of a figure from the ‘101 patent and the allegedly infringing snow shovel model. Ames True Temper is represented by David Radack, Mark Willard, and Mark Gebauer of Eckert Seamins Cherin & Mellot. The case has been assigned to Yvette Kane.

No comments :

Post a Comment