Yummie Tummie Sues Spanx for Design Patent Infringement

On April 2, 2013, Yummie Tummie sued fellow shapewear maker Spanx in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for patent infringement of six of its design patents.  The suit follows Yummie Tummie’s cease and desist letter from earlier this year and Spanx’s own complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement against Yummie Tummie filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. 

In its complaint (Case 1:13-cv-02157-AKH), Yummie Tummie asserted that Spanx’s products, including “The Total Taming Tank A226764,” the “Top This Tank Style 1847,” and “The Top This Cami Style 1846,” infringe the following U.S. design patents: D606,285; D616,627; D622,477; D623,377; D665,558; and D666,384.  The complaint did not include exhibits illustrating Spanx’s at-issue products, but Figures 1 and 3 of Yummie Tummie Design Patent D606,285 are provided below for visual context.

Yummie Tummie seeks damages and/or a disgorgement of Spanx’s total profits as well as its customers’ profits for patent infringement.  Yummie Tummie also seeks an injunction preventing Spanx from making, using, selling, or offering to sell, and from contributing to and inducing others to make, use, sell, or offer to sell Yummie Tummie’s patented designs without permission.

Oakley Inc. v. Hire Order, Ltd.

In Oakley Inc. v. Hire Order, Ltd. (3:12-cv-02346-DMS-WMC), the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of California issued an Order on March 28, 2013, denying Hire’s motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement.

As shown in Exhibit B of the Complaint filed on September 26, 2012, Oakley, Inc. (Oakley) issued a letter to Hire Order, Ltd (Hire) on June 22, 2012, demanding that Hire cease sales of its Sportsman Eyewear video recording system.

The Complaint alleged willful and intentional infringement of Oakley's D523,461 (D461) Eyeglass Component design patent, requested a preliminary and permanent injunction, and requested that Hire pay damages for infringing acts and treble damages, profits from the alleged infringement, attorney fees and costs associated with this action.

Hire moved for partial summary judgment of non-infringement, while Oakley asserted that a genuine issue of material fact made the summary judgment inappropriate.

Reproduced below are Figure 1 of the D461 patent (top) and an image of an alleged Sportsman Eyewear infringing product (bottom).  The Court stated in the Factual Background section of the Order that the design of the D461 patent consisted of “an eyeglass frame with bulbous areas on each arm and buttons on each bulbous area.  The frames are curved and have ridges across the front bridge.  There is a dip in the nose bridge, which consists of an x-shaped piece that sits on the nose.”

As re-iterated by the Court, in determining infringement or non-infringement, the claim must first be properly construed to determine scope and meaning, before the properly construed claim can be compared to the accused device.

In addressing the first question, the Court declined to issue a verbal description of the D461 Patent, in accordance with the Supreme Court position that a design is better represented by an illustration “than it could be by any description.” The Court agreed with Oakley that the D461 patent should be construed as the ornamental design for an eyeglass component, as shown and described in Figures 1 through 6 of the patent.

In addressing the second question, the Court relied on the ordinary observer test to determine whether there was infringement.

As reported in the Order, Hire argued that its Sportsman Eyewear had “smooth arms while the arms on the claimed designs have a claw or rib-like pattern.” Hire further argued that buttons on the arms of the accused product were in different locations from the claimed design, and plain instead of ornate on the claimed design.  Hire also argued with respect to the position of the USB input port, and the presence of an additional Micro-SD input.  Finally, Hire stated that its Sportsman Eyewear lacked a scoop on the top of the nose bridge and an x-shaped protrusion on the nose bridge front.

As stated in the Order, Oakley asserted an “overwhelming similarity” between the accused product and claimed design, “or at a minimum, a question of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.”

The Court agreed with Oakley that Hire had not met its burden of proof to show non-infringement, since “‘mere differences of lines in the drawing or sketch … or slight variances in configuration … will not destroy the substantial identity,’” citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670 (quoting Gorham, 81 U.S. at 625-27).

The Court stated that when viewed as a whole there was at least a genuine issue of material fact whether the accused product infringes the claimed design.

Federal Circuit Reverses Dismissal in Hall v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint filed by Mr. Robert J. Hall for patent infringement and other claims.  The Federal Circuit opinion can be found here.

Mr. Hall accused Bed Bath & Beyond of infringing U.S. Design Patent No. D596,439 entitled “Towel Tote.” Fig. 1 from D596,439 is reproduced below.

Mr. Hall’s complaint identified the patent, showed the patented design, and described the accused towel.  However, the district court took the position that the complaint should have included answers to question such as: “what is it about Plaintiff’s towel that he claims is ‘new, original and ornamental,’ meriting the protection of a design patent?” Opinion at 5.  The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

In vacating the district court’s dismissal, the Federal Circuit noted that there are five necessary elements of a patent infringement pleading.  These required elements include:  (i) alleging ownership of the patent, (ii) naming each defendant, (iii) citing the patent that is allegedly infringed, (iv) stating the means by which the defendant allegedly infringes, and (v) pointing to the sections of the patent law invoked.  Opinion at 4.  The Federal Circuit pointed out that Mr. Hall presented a lengthy complaint and plausibly satisfied each of these requirements.  Opinion at 6-8. 

The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in requiring that the complaint identify the “new, original, and ornamental” aspects of the claimed design, and pointed out that in Egyptian Goddess the Federal Circuit eliminated the “point of novelty” step when determining infringement of a design patent.  Opinion at 7.  Further, the Federal Circuit stated that “claim construction is not an essential element of a patent infringement complaint.” Opinion at 5.

Judge Lourie wrote a dissenting opinion.  Despite pointing out flaws in the district court’s analysis, Judge Lourie’s dissent took the position that the district court’s analysis was not sufficiently faulty to justify vacation of its dismissal and that the plaintiff should have accepted the court’s invitation to replead its patent count.  Dissent at 3. 

Apple v. Samsung: ITC Initial Determination

On October 24, 2012, the ITC issued an "Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337," in Inv. No. 337-TA-796.  In this case, Apple alleged Samsung had imported various infringing devices (smartphones and tablets) into the U.S. 

In summary, ALJ Tomas B. Pender determined that a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 has been found in connection with several utility patents and U.S. Design Patent No. D618,678 (Fig. 1 of which is reproduced below).  ALJ Pender also concluded that this patent is not invalid.

ALJ Pender also determined that no violation of Section 337 was found in connection with U.S. Design Patent No. D558,757 (Figs. 3-4 of which is reproduced below), and concluded that this patent is not invalid. 

Apple v. Samsung: Apple requests injunctions

Following the jury verdict, Apple has requested an injunction of seven Samsung phones based on design patent infringement of D677 and D305.

Update on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 9:00AM by Marc Albert Robinson

As reported by Reuters, Judge Koh has set a December 6, 2012, hearing date for Apple's request for injunctions.  Originally, the hearing was scheduled for September 20, 2012, but this date will now be used for a hearing to dissolve the sales ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1.