DCT
2:24-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: Venue is asserted based on Defendant conducting business, marketing, and selling its products within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "The Dome Shaver Pro" infringes a utility patent and a design patent related to ergonomic electric head shavers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld electric shavers with a specific ergonomic body shape designed to improve a user's grip and control when shaving curved parts of the body, such as the head.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has previously issued a General Exclusion Order "barring the import of products that infrinve [sic] upon the patents of Plaintiff Skull Shaver," which may be raised by the Plaintiff to suggest the strength and validity of its intellectual property portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,726,528 Priority Date |
| 2011-08-11 | U.S. Patent No. D672,504 Priority Date |
| 2012-12-11 | U.S. Patent No. D672,504 Issue Date |
| 2014-05-20 | U.S. Patent No. 8,726,528 Issue Date |
| 2024-10-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
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’s background section states that conventional electric shavers are often designed for shaving the face, where the user’s grip is typically below the cutting surface. This configuration is described as ill-suited for shaving one’s own head, which requires the grip to be oriented above the cutting surface ('528 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an electric shaver with a distinctively shaped housing that functions as an ergonomic grip. The housing features two sets of "concave surfaces" or recesses: a first pair on the sides of the housing and a second pair on the bottom surface ('528 Patent, col. 3:21-35). This design is intended to be "anatomically convenient," allowing a user to grip the device between their fingers while resting the palm or other fingers on the scalp, thereby improving control and tactile feedback during shaving ('528 Patent, col. 2:45-48; Fig. 4-6).
- Technical Importance: The specified grip design purports to solve the ergonomic challenge of self-shaving the head, allowing for a more stable and guided application of the shaver to the scalp's curved surface ('528 Patent, col. 3:40-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint bases its infringement count on "one or more claims" of the Utility Patent (Compl. ¶17), with its factual allegations tracking the language of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- A housing for electrical and drive components with a bottom and two "substantially opposed and substantially parallel sides."
- A cutter mechanism located beneath and spaced from the housing’s bottom.
- A central hub connecting the housing to the cutter mechanism.
- The cutter mechanism having a cutting surface that defines a plane.
- A "first pair of elongated recesses" on the sides of the housing, parallel to each other and the cutting surface plane.
- A "second set of elongated spaced apart recesses" formed in the housing’s bottom, extending "upwardly" into the bottom, located on opposite sides of the hub, and extending "perpendicular to said first pair of recesses."
- The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. D672,504 - "Electric Head Shaver," issued December 11, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While the patent itself does not articulate a problem, the complaint frames its subject matter as part of the solution to the ergonomic deficiencies of prior art shavers (Compl. ¶3-4). Design patents protect the ornamental, non-functional appearance of an object.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for an "electric head shaver" as shown in its figures ('504 Patent, CLAIM). The claimed design (depicted in solid lines) is characterized by a rounded-rectangular body with prominent concave indentations on its longer sides, a central hub extending from the bottom, and a specific arrangement of cutter heads ('504 Patent, Fig. 1-8).
- Technical Importance: Not applicable; design patents protect ornamental appearance, not technical utility.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The '504 Patent claims: "The ornamental design for an 'electric head shaver,' as shown and described."
- The complaint alleges infringement of this claim based on the "ordinary observer" test (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "The Dome Shaver Pro" electric shaver sold by Defendant Manscaped (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is an electric shaver that embodies the inventions of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14). For the '528 Patent, it is alleged to comprise a housing, a cutter mechanism, a central hub, and a cutting surface that defines a plane (Compl. ¶18). For the '504 Patent, its "overall appearance" is alleged to be "substantially the same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶23). The complaint also notes that the accused shavers are "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
The complaint alleges that the accused shaver "practices all of the limitations of the Utility Patent" and provides a narrative that tracks the language of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
| 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 having a length and a width, and including two substantially opposed and substantially parallel sides along said length, said housing further including a bottom | The accused shaver comprises a housing for containing an electrical source and drive-related components with a length, width, and a bottom. | ¶18 | col. 3:1-4 |
| a cutter mechanism located beneath said bottom of said housing and spaced therefrom | The accused shaver has a cutter mechanism located beneath the bottom of its housing and spaced from it. | ¶18 | col. 3:4-6 |
| a central hub extending from said bottom of said housing to said cutter mechanism and connecting said cutter mechanism to said housing | The accused shaver has a central hub extending from the housing bottom to the cutter mechanism, connecting the two. | ¶18 | col. 3:6-9 |
| said cutter mechanism including a cutting surface defining a plane | The accused shaver's cutter mechanism includes a cutting surface that defines a plane. | ¶18 | col. 3:10-11 |
| a first pair of elongated recesses formed on said sides of said housing, said first pair of elongated recesses being substantially parallel to each other and lying in a plane that is spaced apart from but parallel to the plane of said cutting surface | The complaint does not provide specific allegations for this element but generally alleges the accused product practices all limitations of the patent. | ¶18 | col. 3:25-29 |
| a second set of elongated spaced apart recesses formed in said bottom of said housing...extending upwardly into said bottom...located on opposite sides of said hub and extending perpendicular to said first pair of recesses | The complaint does not provide specific allegations for this element but generally alleges the accused product practices all limitations of the patent. | ¶18 | col. 3:29-35 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The complaint’s infringement allegations for the '528 Patent largely recite claim language without detailing how the physical structure of the "Dome Shaver Pro" meets the specific geometric requirements of the two distinct pairs of "elongated recesses." A central question will be whether the accused product's housing actually includes two sets of recesses with the claimed parallel and perpendicular orientations.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused product's ergonomic features, if any, fall within the scope of the term "elongated recesses," or if they are structurally different in a way that avoids infringement.
’504 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that "the overall appearance of the The Dome Shaver Pro shaver is substantially the same as the design in the Patent" (Compl. ¶23). It asserts that an "ordinary observer" would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶25). The complaint acknowledges "some differences in the designs" but contends they do not overcome the overall similarity (Compl. ¶23).
- Identified Points of Contention: The primary legal question is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused design is substantially the same as the claimed design. The analysis will require a side-by-side comparison, and the "differences" acknowledged by the Plaintiff will likely form the core of the non-infringement defense.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "elongated recesses"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 of the '528 Patent and defines the core ergonomic features of the housing. The presence, shape, and orientation of these recesses are central to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes these features more generally as a "gripping means" and "concave surfaces" ('528 Patent, col. 3:23, col. 3:27), which could support an interpretation not strictly limited to the exact shape in the drawings.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict very distinct and deeply indented concave shapes ('528 Patent, Fig. 1, 3). A defendant could argue that "recesses" requires a structure with a similar depth and definition, not merely a slight concavity.
The Term: "extending upwardly into said bottom"
- Context and Importance: This phrase in Claim 1 of the '528 Patent describes the specific location and three-dimensional orientation of the second set of recesses on the shaver's underside. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product has features that match this precise geometric arrangement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be argued to cover any feature on the bottom surface that indents into the housing body in a direction opposite the cutter heads.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 shows the recesses (113a, 113b) as distinct cavities formed within the bottom plane of the housing 110 ('528 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support a narrower construction requiring a clear intrusion into the housing’s main body.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "has willfully and deliberately infringed the Patents" (Compl. ¶14) and requests treble damages as a remedy (Prayer for Relief ¶F). The pleading does not, however, state a specific factual basis for willfulness, such as pre-suit notification or copying.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute centers on the specific structural and ornamental features of an ergonomic electric shaver. The resolution of the case will likely depend on the court's and/or jury's answers to the following questions:
A key structural question for the utility patent: Does the accused "Dome Shaver Pro" physically embody the specific two-part recess system of Claim 1, including not only the presence of indentations but also their claimed geometric orientation (side recesses parallel to the cutting plane, bottom recesses perpendicular to the side recesses)? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on these limitations highlights this as a central point of dispute.
A core question of visual perception for the design patent: When viewed as a whole, is the ornamental design of the accused shaver "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '504 patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived, or are the differences significant enough to avoid infringement?
A significant evidentiary question related to context: How, if at all, will the prior General Exclusion Order from the ITC, as alleged in the complaint, influence the court's view of the patents' strength or the nature of the alleged infringement, particularly on the issue of willfulness?