On March 21, 2011, Predator Outdoor Products, LLC (“Predator”) filed suit against Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Predator’s Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Predator does not infringe any valid claim of U.S. patent no. 5,387,949 (“the ‘949 patent”) or U.S. D523,461 (“the D461 patent”).

Predator filed suit after receiving a letter from Oakley asserting that Predator’s i-Kam Extreme products infringe the ‘949 and D461 patents.  Oakley’s letter further demanded that Predator “immediately cease” infringing the patents, demanded an accounting for the sales of all allegedly infringing products, and enclosed a draft Complaint against Predator.

Read More

Garmin filed suit against Bryton in a Kansas federal court, claiming that Bryton devices for cycling enthusiasts infringe design and utility patents held by Garmin.  The design patent in suit is U.S. Patent No. D632,984 (hereinafter “the ‘984 patent”) and is titled “Electronic Device.”  Figure 1, which is a front perspective view, and Figure 2, which is a rear perspective view, of the ‘984 patent are reproduced below.

Read More

Chrysler’s ITC Complaint alleging Design Patent Infringement of a Concept Vehicle Results in Settlement, Cease and Desist Orders and Limited Exclusion Orders

See our posting on the ITC 337 Law Blog of March 16, 2011.

Read More

Bell Helicopter was recently awarded $22.5 million in a trade dress infringement suit against the government of Iran.  Judge Urbina, writing for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, handed down the award two years after entering a default judgment against the government of Iran.  Iran failed to respond to Bell’s complaint or enter an appearance in court, resulting in the default judgment.

Bell’s trade dress suit related to helicopter designs which were also protected, in part, by three design patents: D388,048, D375,077 and D363,054.  Iran was accused of manufacturing at least thirteen counterfeit helicopter designs beginning in 2001 and promoting the counterfeit helicopters at an air show held annually in Iran.  Although two of the design patents in question have expired, Bell succeeded in its claim for trade dress infringement by demonstrating to the satisfaction of the court that its helicopter designs are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning since being first introduced in 1966.  The court also agreed with Bell that Iran’s designs are “confusingly similar” to that of Bell and that Bell’s designs are non-functional and ornamental.  See Opinion, at page 6. 

Read More

As reported on Oblon, Spivak’s ITC Blog, Boston Beer Corporation (“Boston Beer”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

Boston Beer, which is a subsidiary of the brewer of Samuel Adams beer, alleges that 1 Source Signature Glassware, Inc., di Sciacca Co., and San Tan Brewing Co. (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) — all of Chandler, Arizona — unlawfully import into the U.S. and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain glassware that infringes U.S. Patent Nos. D582,213 and D569,189 (collectively, the “asserted patents”).

Read More