Patent Infringement

Daimler Sues Over Alleged smart fortwo Knockoffs

August 18, 2011

Daimler AG filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan against Shuanghuan Automobile Company, Shuanghuan Auto USA, and Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. for trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark counterfeiting, trademark dilution, and patent infringement related to Daimler’s smart fortwo cars. The design patents at issue are U.S. Patent Number D389,783, U.S. Patent Number D477,250, and U.S. Patent Number D549,134.

Apple v. Samsung: Update August 26, 2011

August 26, 2011

Since our last update, Apple has succeeded in obtaining a trial date of July 30, 2012, in the Northern District of California (this relates to Apple's U.S. federal claim against Samsung).

Also, a Dutch court ordered an injunction against Samsung's Galaxy smartphones (but not the tablet) based on a software-related patent. Samsung stated it would modify the software in its phones to work around the patent.

Apple v. Samsung: Update October 17, 2011

October 17, 2011

As reported by Reuters, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has commented on the case in a court hearing on Thursday, October 13, 2011, but has not yet ruled on a pending motion for a preliminary injunction to bar some of the Samsung Galaxy products from being sold in the U.S.

Reportedly, Judge Koh frequently remarkedon similarities between the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Apple iPad, and even questioned Samsung's attorneys as whether they could identify Samsung's tablet between the two.

Keurig Sues Rogers Family Co. Over Single-Serve Coffee Container Design

November 11, 2011

Keurig has filed suit against Rogers Family Co. (“Rogers”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that beverage containers sold by Rogers infringe one design patent and two utility patents. The complaint states that the beverage containers sold by Rogers, such as its “OneCups,” are for use with Keurig’s single-serve brewers. The design patent in suit is U.S. Patent No. D502,362.

Crocs, Inc. files complaint against Walgreen Co. alleging footwear design infringement

November 18, 2011

Crocs, Inc. filed a complaint against Walgreen Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on November 11, 2011. The complaint alleges that Walgreen “manufactures, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports molded footwear throughout the United States” that infringe a design patent (U.S. Patent No. D610,784, hereinafter “the ‘784 patent”) and a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858 B2) assigned to Crocs. In particular, the complaint alleges that the “Caribbean Cartel” footwear sold by Walgreen are “obvious imitations of well-known and successful Crocs styles.” Although the specific designs of the alleged infringing footwear are unknown, images of Caribbean Cartel The Lost Pirates footwear, taken from eBay.com (last visited Nov. 16, 2011), are shown below. Figure 1 from U.S. D610,784 is shown to the right.

Nestlé continues Trend of Recent Consumer Products Design Patent Complaints

January 31, 2012

Continuing a pattern of design patent infringement suits involving consumer products filed in recent months, Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. “(Nestlé ) and Gerber Products Company (“Gerber”) sued Mead Johnson & Company, LLC (“Mead Johnson”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on January 26, 2012.

The suit, 1:12-cv-0079, alleges that the sale of certain Mead Johnson bottles infringes Nestlé’s U.S. Design Patent No. D 447,421 (“the ‘421 patent”). The complaint further alleges unfair competition, trade dress infringement, and various state law causes of action against Mead Johnson. The ‘421 patent is directed towards an ornamental design for a bottle. See Fig. 1 to the left.

Skechers files a complaint alleging footwear design infringement

February 7, 2012

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. filed a complaint against The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc., on February 2, 2012 (case number 2:2012-cv-00928 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) alleging that Children’s Place manufactures, imports, sells, and offers to sell a line of footwear that “embodies and infringes the patented invention” disclosed in Skechers’s U.S. Design Patent D571,095.

The design patent at issue claims the ornamental design for a “crystal-covered show toe cap,” shown below.

OAKLEY FILES SUIT AGAINST UVEX OVER SUNGLASSES PATENTS

February 10, 2012

Oakley, Inc. (“Oakley”) filed suit against Uvex Sports, Inc. (“Uvex”) on February 3, 2012, in the in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Oakley alleges that certain Uvex products infringe U.S. patent no. 5,638,145 (“the ‘145 patent”), D557,325 (“the D325 patent”), or D556,818 (“the D818 patent”).

Specifically, the Complaint lists Uvex’s Rage product as infringing the D325 patent. One of the commercially available Uvex Rage glasses is shown below to the left, with Fig. 1 of the D325 patent to the right.

NIKE files a complaint alleging footwear design infringement

February 10, 2012

NIKE, Inc. filed a complaintagainst QiLoo International Limited, a Chinese company, on February 6, 2012 (case number 2:2012-cv-00191 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada), alleging infringement of 23 U.S. design patents, listed below.

D361,884 D500,585 D546,541 D578,294

Oakley concludes one successful enforcement suit and continues another

February 16, 2012

On February 9, 2012, Oakley, Inc., concluded a successful suit to enforce eyeglass utility and design patents in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Oakley v. Talitor Far East Co. Ltd et al., case no. 3:2011-cv-01305). The complaint, filed in June of 2011, alleged infringement of Oakley’s design patent, U.S. Patent No. D523,461 (“ the D461 patent”), and utility patent, U.S Patent No. 5,387,949 (“the ‘949 patent”), by eleven named defendants.

The D461 patent claims the ornamental design for an eyeglass component, as shown below.

Lindby Custom successfully enforces a design for motorcycle parts, but would the proposed PARTS legislation have affected the court’s ruling?

February 22, 2012

On February 15, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered Default Judgment in the matter of Lindby Custom, Inc. v. AMI Group (case no. 8:10-cv-01779). In its Complaint, Lindby Custom alleged infringement of U.S. Design Patent D548,142 (“the D142 patent”), in addition to trade dress and unfair competition claims.

The D142 patent claims “the ornamental design for the combined engine guard and highway peg” for motorcycles, shown below.

Oakley drops utility patent claims and proceeds with design claim following Markman hearing; court declines to construe the design claim

March 12, 2012

On March 5, 2012, Oakley entered into a Covenant Not to Sue either Predator Outdoor Products or Hunter Specialties under U.S. utility patent 5,387,949 (“the ‘949 patent”). The covenant not to sue was executed on the same day as the Markman hearing in the matter of Oakley v. Predator Outdoor Products et al. (case no. 8:2011-cv-00456, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California).

As we previously reported, Oakley originally alleged infringement of both the ‘949 patent and the U.S. design patent D523,461 (“the D461 patent”). However, as a result of the covenant not to sue under the utility patent, the D461 patent is currently the only remaining patent at issue in this case.

Digest of new and closed design patent cases from Feb. 6 to Mar. 16, 2012

March 16, 2012

We have found it helpful, and interesting, to track newly filed and closed design patent cases on a weekly basis. In hope that readers of our Protecting Designs Blog might benefit as well, we have tabulated our search results over the period from February 6 to March 16, 2012, and posted them here.

During this six week period, we identified 15 newly filed cases and 20 closed cases that assert a cause of action involving a design patent. Of the closed cases identified, the average pendency of the litigation was 0.6 years, where the maximum and minimum pendencies were 1.6 years and 4 days, respectively.

Digest of new and closed design patent cases from Mar. 19 to April 6, 2012

April 11, 2012

In light of the positive response we received from our earlier Design Patent Digest post, we decided to post another. A table of newly filed and closed design patent cases from March 19, 2012, to April 6, 2012, including a handful of earlier cases not identified in our previous search, is posted here. Over this three week period, we identified 20 new cases and 10 closed cases involving a design patent.

Some cases that we found particularly interesting are mentioned below.

Digest of new and closed design patent cases from April 9-20, 2012

April 24, 2012

Wal-Mart and Oakley were among the parties to 8 newly-filed cases and 5 closed cases involving design patents during the two-week period of April 9-20, 2012. A tabulated summary of these cases is posted here. Some cases that we found particularly interesting are mentioned below.

Oakley, Inc.filed suit against Great L&H Trading, Inc. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of eyewear design and utility patents. On the same day, Great L&H Trading filed a correspondingdeclaratory judgment action in the Southern District of New York. This new case follows other Oakley eyewear design infringement suits that we previously reported on 02/10/12, 02/16/12, and 03/12/12. Links to the patents at issue in this case are listed below.

Apple v. Samsung: Settlement Conference

May 1, 2012

FOSS Patents has published a list of the 50+ pending Apple-Samsung lawsuits spanning the globe. Although the timely resolution of so many lawsuits may require divine intervention, Judge Lucy Koh (who is presiding over the lawsuits in the Northern District of California) "ordered the parties to comment on their availability for an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) effort," as reported by FOSS Patents. As a result of Apple's and Samsung's responses, U.S. Magistrate Judge Spero will now preside over a settlement conference on May 21-22, 2012, in San Francisco.

Apple V. Samsung: CAFC Appeal Decision

May 15, 2012

In December, 2011, Apple appealed Judge Lucy Koh's denial of a preliminary injunction in the pending lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with respect to four Apple patents:

D618,677, which is alleged to be infringed by Samsung's Infuse 4G and Galaxy S 4G smartphones;

Apple V. Samsung: CAFC Appeal Decision - The Dissent

May 17, 2012

Further to our prior post concerning the recent CAFC Appeal Decision, on May 14, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s decision to deny a preliminary injunction to plaintiff Apple for its design patent D504,889 for a tablet. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision denying a preliminary injunction with regard to two other design patents and a utility patent drawn to smartphones.

The dissent by circuit Judge O'Malley urged the majority to immediately enter a preliminary injunction for design patent D504,889. The majority remanded the decision to the district court to complete the analysis of the balance of the hardship factors and the public interest factors, which were only performed for the smartphone patents by the district court. The dissent argues that these factors favor Apple with respect to the tablet patent D504,889, and that this analysis should not be remanded to the district court, as the delay would further prejudice Apple. In particular, Judge O'Malley stated on p. 2 of the dissent that:

Beats sues Yamaha for trade dress and design patent infringement

February 15, 2013

Beats Electronics, LLC (Beats) filed a complaint against Yamaha Corporation of America (Yamaha) on February 6, 2013, in the Central District of California, alleging infringement of Beats’ design patents and trade dress. The complaint includes a request that the court enter a judgment that requires Yamaha to deliver to Beats, for destruction, all of the alleged infringing headphones and any materials which depict the alleged infringing headphones. The complaint demands a jury trial on all issues.

According to the complaint, counsel for Beats notified Yamaha on November 30, 2012, of its belief that the Yamaha Pro 300, Yamaha Pro 400 and Yamaha Pro 500 headphones infringe Beats patents and Beats’ trade dress rights, and the complaint alleges that the Pro 300, Pro 400 and Pro 500 headphones are “knock-offs of Beats’ world-famous ‘Studio,’ ‘Solo,’ and 'Wireless’ model headphones.”

Pacific Coast v. Malibu Boats

January 10, 2014

In 2011, Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Limited (Pacific Coast) brought suit (No. 12-CV-0033) against Malibu Boats, LLC (Malibu) in the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. D555,070. The District Court held that Pacific Coast was barred from alleging infringement due to prosecution history estoppel, and Pacific Coast appealed.

On January 8, 2014, the Federal Circuit held that “the principles of prosecution history estoppel apply to design patents” but reversed the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement because “the accused infringing design was not within the scope of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution.”

Start
Previous
1
2
Next Page
End