DCT
2:18-cv-03836
Skull Shaver LLC v. Ideavi
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Skull Shaver, LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Ideavillage Products Corp. (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Norman E. Lehrer, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-03836, D.N.J., 03/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is incorporated in and resides in the District of New Jersey.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Flawless Legs" electric shaver infringes its design patent for a contoured, palm-held electric shaver.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of personal grooming devices, specifically concerning the ornamental and aesthetic design of electric shavers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-04-26 | Priority Date (U.S. D693,060) |
| 2013-11-05 | Issue Date (U.S. D693,060) |
| 2018-03-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D693,060 - “Contoured Electric Head Shaver”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D693,060, “Contoured Electric Head Shaver,” issued November 5, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '060 Patent does not describe a technical problem and its solution; rather, it protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture ('060 Patent, Claim). The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a shaver, not its functional characteristics.
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an ornamental design for a "Contoured Electric Head Shaver" characterized by a compact, palm-held form factor ('060 Patent, FIG. 1). The key design elements include a smooth, ovoid or egg-shaped handle, a distinct indented recess on the side for gripping, and a base featuring four rotary shaver heads arranged in a cloverleaf pattern ('060 Patent, FIG. 1, 4, 5).
- Technical Importance: The complaint does not provide factual allegations regarding the technical or commercial importance of the design itself, beyond Plaintiff being in the business of designing and selling electric shavers (Compl. ¶6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a contoured electric head shaver, as shown and described" ('060 Patent, Claim). The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance depicted in Figures 1-7.
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- The overall ovoid/egg-shaped body.
- The specific profile and placement of the side grip recesses.
- The arrangement of four circular cutting heads on the base of the device.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is an electric shaver marketed by Defendant as "Flawless Legs" (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as an electric shaver sold primarily through television infomercials and online, which allegedly prevents prospective consumers from closely examining the product before purchase (Compl. ¶8, ¶9). The complaint alleges the accused product embodies the patented design by having an "essentially egg shaped handle," "elongated recesses along the sides of the handle," and "four rotating blades at the bottom" (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges specific points of similarity.
D693,060 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the Patented Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall design, including an essentially egg shaped handle | The "Flawless Legs" shaver is alleged to have an "essentially egg shaped handle." | ¶11 | col. 1:58-60 |
| The design's elongated recesses along the sides of the handle | The "Flawless Legs" shaver is alleged to have "elongated recesses along the sides of the handle." | ¶11 | col. 1:64-66 |
| The design's four rotating blades at the bottom | The "Flawless Legs" shaver is alleged to have "four rotating blades at the bottom." | ¶11 | col. 1:63 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint concedes "there are some differences in the designs" but alleges the "overall appearance... is substantially the same" (Compl. ¶10). A primary issue will be whether the admitted differences are significant enough to dissuade an ordinary observer from finding the designs substantially similar, especially when considered in light of the prior art.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the specific contours, proportions, and surface treatments of the accused "Flawless Legs" shaver compare to the solid lines shown in the '060 Patent's figures. The case will depend on a visual comparison of the products to determine if the similarities in the major features (handle shape, recesses, blade count) outweigh any differences in the finer details.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the design as a whole, rather than the definition of individual text-based terms.
- The "Term": The "overall ornamental design"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis rests on comparing the overall appearance of the accused "Flawless Legs" shaver with the "overall ornamental design" claimed in the '060 Patent. The court's interpretation of the design's scope—including which features contribute most to its overall appearance—will be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The design's overall impression is defined by the combination of its most prominent features: the palm-held ovoid body, the side grip indentations, and the four-head shaver arrangement ('060 Patent, FIG. 1, 2). A party could argue that infringement occurs if this general combination is copied, even with minor variations in specific contours.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precise shapes of the body, the specific curvature and ridging of the side recesses, and the exact proportions shown in the patent's figures could be argued to limit the scope of the design ('060 Patent, FIG. 5, 7). Further, the patent is titled "Contoured Electric Head Shaver," which a party might argue cabins the design's scope to that specific context, potentially influencing the "ordinary observer" analysis when the accused product is marketed for a different use.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "has willfully and deliberately infringed the Patent" and requests treble damages (Compl. ¶6; Prayer for Relief ¶B). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support this allegation, such as evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or intentional copying.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art, be deceived into purchasing the "Flawless Legs" shaver believing it to be the shaver shown in the '060 Patent? This analysis will turn on whether the alleged similarities in overall form outweigh the admitted, but unspecified, "differences in the designs" (Compl. ¶10).
- A central evidentiary question will be one of scope and similarity: once visual evidence is presented, how closely do the specific contours and proportions of the accused product match those claimed in the patent drawings? The court's determination of which design elements constitute the core "overall appearance" will be critical to the outcome.