DCT
2:24-cv-10116
Skull Shaver LLC v. Cut Buddy
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Skull Shaver, LLC (New Jersey)
- Defendant: The Cut Buddy (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Soliman & Associates, PC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-10116, E.D. Pa., 10/28/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant conducts business, markets, and sells its products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "The Bald Buddy" electric shaver infringes a utility patent and a design patent related to ergonomic head shavers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld electric shavers with a novel ergonomic body, designed to be gripped from above the cutting heads for better control when shaving curved body parts such as the head.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has previously issued a General Exclusion Order "barring the import of products that violate the patents of Plaintiff Skull Shaver," which may be relevant to questions of notice and willfulness.
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 Issued |
| 2014-05-20 | U.S. Patent No. 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 shortcoming in conventional electric shavers, which are generally designed with a grip below the cutting surface, making them awkward for shaving one's own head where the grip must be oriented above the cutters (Compl. ¶3; ’528 Patent, col. 1:33-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an electric shaver with a distinct housing shape that functions as an ergonomic grip. The housing features two sets of concave recesses: a pair on the sides of the housing and a second pair on the underside. This design allows a user to grip the shaver between their fingers while resting the hand on the scalp, providing better tactile feedback and control when shaving curved surfaces (’528 Patent, col. 2:59-63, Figs. 4-6).
- Technical Importance: The design offered an anatomically convenient way to hold a shaver against the top and sides of the head, a task for which prior shavers were not optimized (’528 Patent, col. 2:45-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s allegations focus on Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A housing for electrical and drive components.
- A cutter mechanism located beneath the housing's bottom.
- A central hub connecting the housing and cutter mechanism.
- A "first pair of elongated recesses" on the sides of the housing.
- A "second set of elongated spaced apart recesses" on the bottom of the housing, extending upwardly into the bottom and perpendicular to the first pair of recesses.
U.S. Patent No. D672,504 - “Electric Head Shaver” (Issued Dec. 11, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve functional problems; they protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for an electric head shaver as depicted in its eight figures (’D504 Patent, "CLAIM"). The design is characterized by a compact, rounded rectangular body with prominent concave indentations on its sides and underside, positioned above a multi-headed cutting assembly.
- Technical Importance: The patent protects the unique aesthetic appearance of the shaver, distinguishing it visually from other products in the market.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an 'electric head shaver,' as shown and described" (’D504 Patent, "CLAIM"). Infringement is assessed based on the overall visual similarity from the perspective of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"The Bald Buddy" electric shaver (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes "The Bald Buddy" as an electric shaver that embodies the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14). Its alleged structure includes a housing for drive components, a cutter mechanism located beneath the housing, and a central hub connecting the two parts (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges the product is "relatively inexpensive costing only about $60.00" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint states that photographs of the accused product are attached as Exhibit C (Compl. ¶14). 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 limitations of the utility patent but provides specific factual allegations for only a subset of the elements 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 said housing further including a bottom | Defendant's accused electric shaver comprises a housing for containing an electrical source and drive-related components, said housing having a length and a width, and said housing further including a bottom. | ¶18 | col. 4:9-13 |
| 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. 4:16-18 |
| 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. 4:19-22 |
| said cutter mechanism including a cutting surface defining a plane | said cutter mechanism including a cutting surface defining a plane. | ¶18 | col. 4:23-24 |
| a first pair of elongated recesses formed on said sides of said housing... | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element. | col. 4:25-29 | |
| a second set of elongated spaced apart recesses formed in said bottom of said housing... extending perpendicular to said first pair of recesses | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element. | col. 4:30-36 |
’504 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges design patent infringement under the "ordinary observer" test, asserting that despite "some differences," the overall appearance of "The Bald Buddy" is "substantially the same as the design in the Patent" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges that an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the products are the same (Compl. ¶25). As an example of the similarity, the complaint points to three common structural features: a housing for components, a central hub connecting the housing to a cutter mechanism, and a cutter mechanism defining a plane (Compl. ¶24).
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions (’528 Patent): A primary issue will be factual and evidentiary: does "The Bald Buddy" shaver include the two distinct sets of "elongated recesses"—one on the housing sides and a second on the housing bottom—as explicitly required by Claim 1? The complaint makes a blanket allegation of infringement but omits specific facts mapping the accused product to these key claim limitations.
- Aesthetic Questions (’D504 Patent): The core dispute will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product is substantially similar to the patented design. The complaint's acknowledgement of "some differences" (Compl. ¶23) suggests that the extent and visual impact of these differences will be a central point of contention for the fact-finder.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Analysis is focused on the '528 Patent, as claim construction is less central to the holistic analysis of a design patent.
- The Term: "elongated recesses"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core ergonomic feature of the invention. Its construction is critical because the complaint lacks specific allegations regarding these features on the accused product. The dispute may turn on whether any indentations on "The Bald Buddy" shaver meet the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the recesses to be "elongated" and formed on the "sides" and "bottom" of the housing, with each being defined by a "concave surface" (’528 Patent, col. 4:25-38). Parties arguing for a broader scope may contend that any elongated concave feature in these general locations meets the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and claims describe a specific geometric relationship, stating the "second set of elongated spaced apart recesses... [extend] perpendicular to said first pair of recesses" (’528 Patent, col. 4:35-36; col. 3:32-35). Parties arguing for a narrower construction may assert that this perpendicular arrangement is a required structural limitation, not merely a feature of a preferred embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general allegation of infringement by "causing others to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell" the accused product (Compl. ¶14), but it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "willful[] and deliberate[]" (Compl. ¶14) and requests treble damages (Compl. p. 6, ¶F). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents, such as through a cease-and-desist letter or prior litigation, though the mention of a prior ITC General Exclusion Order against infringing products may be used to argue Defendant was on notice (Compl. ¶12).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the utility patent claim will be one of structural correspondence. Does the accused "The Bald Buddy" shaver actually possess the two distinct sets of "elongated recesses" with the specific perpendicular orientation required by Claim 1 of the ’528 patent? The complaint’s lack of specific allegations on these core features suggests this will be a significant point of discovery and dispute.
- Holistic Design Comparison: For the design patent claim, the central question is one of overall appearance. Will an ordinary observer, comparing the patented design to the accused product and accounting for any differences, be deceived into believing the two are the same? The case will likely depend on a visual comparison and the degree to which any dissimilarities detract from the claimed ornamental design.
- The Role of the ITC Order: A key background question will be the impact of the prior ITC General Exclusion Order. The court will need to determine what relevance, if any, the existence of this order has on the issue of Defendant’s knowledge and potential willfulness in this specific case.