DCT
1:24-cv-10110
Skull Shaver LLC v. Manscaped
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Skull Shaver, LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Manscaped (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Soliman & Associates, PC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-10110, E.D. Pa., 10/28/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business, markets, and sells its products within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "The Dome Shaver Pro" electric shaver infringes a utility patent and a design patent related to ergonomic shavers designed for the head.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld electric shavers with a novel form factor intended to improve the ergonomics of shaving curved body parts, particularly a user's own head.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has previously issued a General Exclusion Order barring the importation of products that infringe upon Plaintiff's patents, suggesting a history of enforcement activity for this patent portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-08-08 | U.S. Patent 8,726,528 Priority Date |
| 2011-08-11 | U.S. Patent D672,504 Priority Date |
| 2012-12-11 | U.S. Patent D672,504 Issued |
| 2014-05-20 | U.S. Patent 8,726,528 Issued |
| 2024-10-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,726,528 - “Electric Head Shaver,” issued May 20, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in conventional electric shavers, which are typically designed with a grip below the cutting surface, making them awkward to use when shaving one's own head where the grip is oriented above the cutter (D’528 Patent, col. 2:34-41). This conventional design allegedly fails to provide a comfortable or effective grip for manipulating the shaver over the curved surface of the scalp (D’528 Patent, col. 2:4-6).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an electric shaver with a housing specifically shaped to be held comfortably in the palm of the hand, above the cutting mechanism. The solution's key features are two distinct pairs of concave recesses: one pair on the sides of the housing for gripping between the thumb and a finger, and a second pair on the underside of the housing to accommodate the backs of the user's fingers, allowing the rest of the hand to feel the scalp for better guidance (D’528 Patent, col. 1:41-63; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This ergonomic approach offered a purpose-built solution for the self-shaving market, particularly for heads, which was not adequately addressed by traditional shaver form factors (D’528 Patent, col. 2:22-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the Utility Patent, with infringement allegations in paragraph 18 tracking the language of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17-18).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A housing for electrical and drive components, with a bottom.
- A cutter mechanism located beneath and spaced from the housing bottom.
- A central hub connecting the housing to the cutter mechanism.
- A cutter mechanism with a cutting surface defining a plane.
- A first pair of elongated recesses on the sides of the housing.
- A second set of elongated recesses on the bottom of the housing, perpendicular to the first pair.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. D672,504 - “Electric Head Shaver,” issued December 11, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that prior handheld shavers had limited grip orientation and versatility, making them ill-suited for curved body parts (Compl. ¶3).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an electric shaver as depicted in its figures (D’504 Patent, "CLAIM"). The design's overall visual impression is defined by a compact, palm-held body with a generally rectangular shape and rounded corners, featuring prominent concave indentations on its longer sides and scalloped recesses on its underside where a central hub connects to a multi-head cutter (D’504 Patent, Figs. 1, 2).
- Technical Importance: This design presented a novel aesthetic for electric shavers that visually communicated its ergonomic function for head shaving, distinguishing it from the traditional vertical-handle or foil-shaver designs prevalent at the time (Compl. ¶3-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- As a design patent, it contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for an 'electric head shaver,' as shown and described." (D’504 Patent, col. 1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: "The Dome Shaver Pro" (Compl. ¶14).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused product as an electric shaver that embodies the patented inventions (Compl. ¶14). Its structure is alleged to include a housing for an electrical source, a cutter mechanism located beneath the housing, and a central hub connecting the two components (Compl. ¶18). The complaint also notes the product is "relatively inexpensive costing less than $130.00" (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’528 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing for containing an electrical source and drive-related components...said housing further including a bottom | Defendant's accused electric shaver comprises a housing for containing an electrical source and drive-related components...and said housing further including a bottom | ¶18 | col. 4:8-14 |
| a cutter mechanism located beneath said bottom of said housing and spaced therefrom | a cutter mechanism located beneath said bottom of said housing and spaced therefrom | ¶18 | col. 4:15-17 |
| a central hub extending from said bottom of said housing to said cutter mechanism and connecting said cutter mechanism to said housing | a central hub extending from said bottom of said housing to said cutter mechanism and connecting said cutter mechanism to said housing | ¶18 | col. 4:18-21 |
| said cutter mechanism including a cutting surface defining a plane | said cutter mechanism including a cutting surface defining a plane | ¶18 | col. 4:22-23 |
| a first pair of elongated recesses formed on said sides of said housing... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 4:24-31 |
| a second set of elongated spaced apart recesses formed in said bottom of said housing... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 4:32-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s infringement allegations for the '528 Patent recite the general structural elements of Claim 1 but do not provide any factual allegations regarding the presence, shape, or function of the "first pair of elongated recesses" on the sides of the housing or the "second set of elongated spaced apart recesses" on the bottom of the housing (Compl. ¶18). A central question will be whether the accused "Dome Shaver Pro" actually incorporates physical features corresponding to these two specific, claimed recess limitations, which are central to the patent's description of its ergonomic innovation.
’504 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s allegations are narrative and do not map to a claim chart format. The core of the allegation is that the "overall appearance of the The Dome Shaver Pro shaver is substantially the same as the design in the Patent" (Compl. ¶23).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint supports its design infringement claim by pointing to three shared features: a housing, a central hub, and a cutter mechanism (Compl. ¶24). A court will need to determine if these similarities, which may be viewed as primarily functional, are sufficient to make the overall ornamental appearance "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will question whether the specific aesthetic choices of the patented design (e.g., the precise curvature of the recesses, the proportions of the body) are replicated in the accused product, or if the similarities are confined to unprotectable functional elements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’528 Patent:
- The Term: "elongated recesses"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the two limitations of Claim 1 that define the novel ergonomic grips, which are arguably the core of the invention. The complaint's infringement theory does not address these features. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any indentations on the accused product meet the claim, or if a specific shape and size, as depicted in the patent's figures, is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims "recesses" defined by a "concave surface" adapted to accommodate a finger (D’528 Patent, col. 4:40-43), which could suggest that any concave finger-sized indentation meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict distinct, deeply curved, and clearly "elongated" channels on both the sides (Fig. 3, 112a/b) and underside (Fig. 2, 113a/b) of the housing. The term "elongated" itself, combined with the consistent illustrations, could support a narrower construction requiring a recess that is longer than it is wide.
For the ’504 Patent:
The "claim" in a design patent is the drawing itself, so traditional term construction is not central. However, the key issue will be determining the scope of the claimed design.
- The Issue: Scope of the Ornamental Design
- Context and Importance: The central dispute will be distinguishing the protected ornamental features from unprotected functional aspects. The fact that the '528 utility patent claims the recesses as functional gripping means could be used to argue that these features should be afforded less weight in the design patent's "ordinary observer" infringement analysis.
- Evidence for a Broader Scope: Plaintiff will likely argue that the overall visual impression created by the combination of the body, recesses, and cutter head is a unitary, protected design.
- Evidence for a Narrower Scope: Defendant may argue that the design is composed largely of functional elements (a housing that must be held, recesses for grip) and that any similarity in the accused product is dictated by function, not copying of ornamental design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support a claim for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "has willfully and deliberately infringed the Patents" and requests treble damages (Compl. ¶14; Prayer for Relief ¶F). The complaint does not specify whether this allegation is based on pre- or post-suit knowledge, nor does it detail a factual basis beyond the conclusory allegation of willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A key evidentiary question for the utility patent claim will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused "Dome Shaver Pro" possesses the "first pair of elongated recesses" on its sides and the "second set of elongated...recesses" on its bottom, as specifically required by the patent's primary independent claim? The current complaint is silent on these dispositive features.
A core issue for the design patent claim will be the scope of protection: does the overall visual appearance of the accused product appear "substantially the same" as the patented design to an ordinary observer, or are the similarities limited to functional elements? The overlap with features claimed in the '528 utility patent raises the question of how much of the design is ornamental versus functional.
Finally, the case may raise a question of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's focus on high-level, functional similarities for both the utility and design patent claims, a court may need to assess whether the allegations provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for infringement, particularly for the specific ergonomic limitations of the '528 Patent.