DCT
1:24-cv-03186
Christopher Designs Inc v. Henri Daussi LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Christopher Designs, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: Henri Daussi, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP; Tucker Ellis LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03186, S.D.N.Y., 04/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the Defendant is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s diamond products infringe a patent related to specific gemstone cuts designed to increase light amplification.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of gemology and lapidary arts, specifically the geometric faceting of oblong diamonds to enhance their brilliance beyond conventional cuts.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent owner, Ecna, LLC, has granted an exclusive license to Plaintiff Christopher Designs, Inc., which includes all substantial rights to the patent, including the right to sue for infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-01-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,398,791 Priority Date |
| 2016-07-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,398,791 Issued |
| 2024-04-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,398,791 - "Diamond Cuts Providing Increased Light Amplification", issued July 26, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a perceived deficiency in conventional oblong-shaped diamond cuts, such as the emerald cut. These traditional cuts, while elegant, "do not provide the brilliance and light reflecting experience which is the hallmark of the round, brilliant cut stones" (’791 Patent, col. 2:37-40). The goal was to create a cut for oblong stones that would be "more sparkling" (’791 Patent, col. 2:46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unique geometry for oblong stones characterized by specific ranges for the crown and pavilion angles, and a specific relationship between them. This geometry, particularly a "very shallow underside" with pavilion angles between 30 and 34 degrees, is designed to create a "brilliant-like reflection pattern" where light is repeatedly reflected between the stone's internal surfaces before exiting, thereby increasing perceived brilliance (’791 Patent, col. 2:48-54; col. 3:24-34). The complaint includes an annotated diagram from the patent, Figure 1, which identifies the "Crown Surfaces" on a top-down view of the stone (Compl. p. 3).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide a method for increasing the brilliance of non-round diamond shapes, which had become increasingly popular but traditionally lacked the "sparkle" of classic round cuts (’791 Patent, col. 1:11-12, 20-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 13 (Compl. ¶15).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements for an oblong precious stone:
- A table, a girdle, and a shape resulting in specific percentage values for total depth, crown height, girdle height, and table size.
- A first and second crown surface, each extending at a specific "crown angle."
- A first and second pavilion surface, each extending at a specific "pavilion angle."
- The crown angle must be in the range of 30-36 degrees, and the pavilion angle must be in the range of 30-34 degrees.
- The crown and pavilion angles must be formed so that the crown angle is equal to or larger than the pavilion angle by no more than 6 degrees, for the purpose of attaining "increased light amplification."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "the Daussi 1.5 carat diamond" as "The Accused Product" (Compl. ¶14-15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a diamond offered for sale by Defendant that "copies the patented design disclosed in the ’791 patent" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint further alleges that the Accused Product "incorporates all of the patented features of at least claim 1" and is "marketed and sold as a direct substitute for CDI’s products that practice the ’791 patent" (Compl. ¶14-15, 19). The complaint provides an image of an oblong diamond above the patent figures to illustrate the type of product at issue (Compl. p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include the referenced "Exhibit B" claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's direct allegations and its use of the patent's figures to illustrate the claimed features.
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An oblong precious stone elongated in one direction... | The complaint alleges the Accused Product is an oblong diamond that embodies the patented invention. The complaint's annotated Figure 1 illustrates an "Oblong Precious Stone." | ¶14, ¶16, p. 3 | col. 2:53-54 |
| a table..., a girdle, and said precious stone having a shape and configuration that results in a specific total depth percentage, a specific crown height percentage... | The Accused Product is alleged to have a shape and configuration that meets the specific dimensional percentages recited in the claim. | ¶15, ¶16 | col. 4:2-8 |
| a first crown surface, elongated... and extending at a crown angle... [and] a second crown surface... | The Accused Product is alleged to have two long crown surfaces. The complaint's annotated Figure 1 identifies these as "Crown Surfaces." | ¶13, ¶16, p. 3 | col. 4:9-18 |
| a first pavilion surface, elongated... at a pavilion angle... [and] a second pavilion surface... | The Accused Product is alleged to have two long pavilion surfaces. The complaint's annotated Figure 2 identifies these as "Pavilion Surfaces." | ¶13, ¶16, p. 3 | col. 4:19-26 |
| wherein said crown angle is in the range of 30-36 degrees and wherein said pavilion angle is in the range of 30-34 degrees; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product is cut with crown and pavilion angles that fall within the specific numerical ranges required by the claim. | ¶13, ¶16 | col. 4:27-30 |
| and wherein said crown angle and said pavilion angle are so formed that the crown angle is either equal to or larger than said pavilion angle by an angle that does not exceed 6 degrees, to attain increased light amplification. | The complaint alleges the Accused Product's geometry meets the claimed relationship between the crown and pavilion angles and that this structure results in increased light amplification, copying the patented design. | ¶13, ¶16 | col. 4:31-35 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the definition of "oblong precious stone." The patent specification lists several cuts, including emerald, cushion, radiant, oval, and marquis, as applicable shapes (’791 Patent, col. 1:12-18). The analysis may question whether the specific cut of the Accused Product falls within the scope of "oblong" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes general allegations that the Accused Product meets the specific numerical ranges for angles and percentages required by Claim 1 (Compl. ¶13, 15). A central factual question will be whether objective measurements of the Accused Product confirm that its geometry falls within these claimed ranges. The final limitation, "to attain increased light amplification," raises the question of whether this is a functional requirement that necessitates separate proof of the optical result, or if it is an intended purpose that is inherently met if the structural limitations are satisfied.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "oblong precious stone"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines the types of gemstone shapes covered by the patent. The infringement analysis depends on whether the Defendant's specific diamond cut is properly classified as "oblong."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the disclosure is "applicable to other oblong shapes, such as the marquis and oval cuts" and "may even be applied to the asscher and princess cuts as well," suggesting the term is not limited to strictly rectangular forms (’791 Patent, col. 1:15-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures focus heavily on "cushion-cut" and "emerald stone" examples, and the summary of the invention is framed around "oblong gemstone shapes," which may suggest that shapes without a clear elongated axis are excluded (’791 Patent, col. 2:37-44, 2:46).
The Term: "to attain increased light amplification"
- Context and Importance: This phrase appears at the end of Claim 1 and links the stone's geometry to a functional outcome. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—as either a structural definition or a functional requirement—could significantly impact the burden of proof for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Inherently Met): A party could argue the phrase merely states the intended purpose or result of the preceding structural limitations. Under this view, if the specific angles and ratios are met, the "increased light amplification" is presumed to be attained, as the patent describes this result as flowing from the geometry (’791 Patent, col. 2:48-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Requires Proof): A party could argue this is a distinct limitation requiring extrinsic proof that the accused stone, in fact, achieves "increased light amplification" compared to some baseline. The patent's background distinguishes its invention from prior art stones that "do not provide the brilliance and light reflecting experience," which may support an argument that a functional improvement must be demonstrated (’791 Patent, col. 2:37-40).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "willfully infringes multiple claims" of the ’791 patent (Compl. ¶1). It does not, however, plead specific facts indicating Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the patent, suggesting the willfulness claim may be based on conduct occurring after the filing of the complaint.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of several key issues:
- A central evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: Does the "Daussi 1.5 carat diamond" possess the precise geometric and proportional characteristics recited in Claim 1, including the specific angular ranges and the mathematical relationship between the crown and pavilion angles?
- A significant legal issue will be one of claim interpretation: Is the final clause of Claim 1, "to attain increased light amplification," a statement of intended purpose that is satisfied by meeting the structural limitations, or is it a separate functional requirement that Plaintiff must independently prove the accused product achieves?
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Does the term "oblong precious stone," as defined by the patent's specification and examples, encompass the specific cut and shape of the accused diamond?