DCT

5:24-cv-06815

Global Distribution Network LLC v. Skull Shaver LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-06815, E.D. Pa., 12/20/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper because Defendant consented to jurisdiction and venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for any action arising from a 2021 Settlement Agreement, and that the court retained jurisdiction to enforce that agreement.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached a prior patent litigation settlement agreement by filing a new patent infringement suit concerning Plaintiff's updated electric shaver product.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves ergonomic electric shavers with specialized grips designed for self-shaving one's head.
  • Key Procedural History: The current lawsuit stems from a prior dispute. In 2020, Skull Shaver sued GDN for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,726,528 and D672,504. That case was resolved via a Settlement Agreement in August 2021. In October 2024, Skull Shaver filed a new lawsuit in the District of New Jersey, alleging GDN's new "FlexSeries® Pro" shaver infringes the '528 and D'504 patents, as well as U.S. Patent No. D914,290. The present action seeks to enforce the 2021 settlement agreement, alleging the new lawsuit constitutes a breach of a covenant not to sue.

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
2019-05-29 U.S. Patent No. D914,290 Priority Date
2020-07-28 Skull Shaver files initial lawsuit against GDN
2020-10-19 Skull Shaver files Amended Complaint in 2020 Lawsuit
2021-03-23 U.S. Patent No. D914,290 Issued
2021-08-20 Parties enter into Settlement Agreement
2024-10-02 Skull Shaver files new lawsuit against GDN in D.N.J.
2024-12-20 Current Complaint for Breach of Contract 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’s background section notes that conventional electric shavers are designed with a grip below the cutting surface, which is anatomically inconvenient for shaving one's own head. This task requires a grip above the cutter to properly orient the device against the scalp (ʼ528 Patent, col. 1:33-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an electric shaver with a housing specifically shaped to be held comfortably with the user's hand above the cutting head. The design incorporates two key gripping features: a pair of concave surfaces on the sides of the housing for gripping between fingers, and a second pair of concave recesses on the housing's undersurface, which are positioned to accommodate the user's fingertips while the rest of the hand rests on the head for stability (ʼ528 Patent, col. 1:42-62; col. 3:22-35; Figs. 4-6).
  • Technical Importance: This ergonomic design addresses the specific challenges of self-shaving a large, curved surface like the head, aiming to provide greater control and tactile feedback than conventional shavers (ʼ528 Patent, col. 2:42-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted in the underlying D.N.J. litigation. The patent contains two independent claims, 1 and 3. The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:

  • A housing with two opposed, parallel sides and a bottom.
  • A cutter mechanism located beneath and spaced from the housing bottom.
  • A central hub connecting the housing to the cutter mechanism.
  • A "first pair of elongated recesses" on the sides of the housing.
  • A "second set of elongated spaced apart recesses" formed in the bottom of the housing, on opposite sides of the hub, and extending perpendicular to the first pair of recesses.

U.S. Design Patent No. D672,504 - "ELECTRIC HEAD SHAVER," Issued Dec. 11, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Not applicable for a design patent.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for an "electric head shaver," as depicted in the patent's figures (D’504 Patent, p. 1, CLAIM). The design is characterized by a compact, generally rectangular housing with prominent, large concave indentations on its two longer sides. The underside of the housing features two distinct, half-moon-shaped recesses on either side of the central post that connects to the cutting head assembly (D’504 Patent, Figs. 1, 2, 8).
  • Technical Importance: Not applicable for a design patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an 'electric head shaver,' as shown and described" (D’504 Patent, p. 1).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D914,290 - "ELECTRIC SHAVER HEAD," Issued Mar. 23, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for an electric shaver head, not the entire shaver body. The claimed design, shown in solid lines, consists of a four-cutter head assembly in a particular contoured arrangement. The dashed lines showing the connection to the shaver handle indicate that the handle itself is not part of the claimed design (D'290 Patent, Fig. 1, DESCRIPTION).
  • Asserted Claims: A single claim for the ornamental design for an electric shaver head as shown and described (D'290 Patent, p. 1).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that GDN's FlexSeries® Pro shaver infringes this design patent, which was not part of the original 2020 lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused product is Plaintiff's "FlexSeries® Pro" shaver (Compl. ¶ 22).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the FlexSeries® Pro as an "updated/improved version" of the earlier FlexSeries® shaver, which was the subject of the 2020 lawsuit and subsequent settlement (Compl. ¶ 26). The plaintiff makes a specific technical allegation about the accused product, stating that it "does not include a plurality of finger-sized convex recesses formed in the bottom surface of the shaver housing and located between the housing and a cutting head" (Compl. ¶ 27). This allegation is a proactive attempt to distinguish the accused product from a key feature of the asserted '528 patent.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain direct infringement allegations or claim charts, as it is a complaint for breach of contract. It alleges that the defendant, Skull Shaver, made infringement allegations in a separate lawsuit filed in the District of New Jersey (Compl. ¶ 22). The specific theory of infringement from that lawsuit is not detailed.

However, the plaintiff's complaint raises a central point of contention regarding the '528 patent. It alleges the FlexSeries® Pro shaver does not have the "plurality of finger-sized convex recesses formed in the bottom surface of the shaver housing" (Compl. ¶ 27). This feature appears to correspond to the "second set of elongated spaced apart recesses" limitation required by independent claims 1 and 3 of the '528 patent ('528 Patent, col. 4:26-33, 4:54-61). The plaintiff’s assertion frames this as a likely dispositive issue for the utility patent infringement claim.

For the D’504 and D'290 design patents, the infringement analysis in the D.N.J. case would turn on whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the design of the FlexSeries® Pro to be substantially the same as the designs claimed in those patents. The current complaint provides no basis for such a comparison.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: Does the accused FlexSeries® Pro product, in fact, have structures that meet the "second set of...recesses" limitation of the '528 patent's claims? The plaintiff’s explicit denial suggests this will be a primary factual dispute.
    • Contractual Question: Is the FlexSeries® Pro an "updated/improved version" of the originally licensed FlexSeries® shaver, and does it fall within the scope of the license granted by the 2021 Settlement Agreement? (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28).
    • Scope Question: For the design patents, the key question is whether the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product is substantially similar to the patented designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a second set of elongated spaced apart recesses formed in said bottom of said housing" ('528 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the underlying infringement dispute for the '528 patent. The plaintiff has built its argument in the present contract case around the assertion that its new product lacks this specific feature (Compl. ¶ 27). Therefore, how broadly or narrowly this term is defined could determine whether the FlexSeries® Pro infringes and, consequently, whether the D.N.J. lawsuit constitutes a breach of the settlement agreement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for a functional definition, citing specification language that the purpose of the recesses is to "accommodate the backs of the user's fingers" ('528 Patent, Abstract) or to allow the "tops of the fingers" to lie within them ('528 Patent, col. 3:55-57). This might support construing any significant indentation on the housing's bottom that serves this ergonomic function as a "recess."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and detailed description show distinct, clearly defined concave structures (e.g., elements 113a and 113b in Fig. 2). The specification describes them as a "second pair of elongated recesses" that are "perpendicular to the first pair" ('528 Patent, col. 3:28-35). This language, along with the claim requirements that they be "spaced apart" and on "opposite sides of said hub," could support a narrower construction requiring separate, distinct structural elements as depicted, rather than general contouring of the housing bottom.

VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this case, which seeks to enforce a prior settlement, will likely depend on the answers to several interconnected questions:

  • A core issue will be one of contract interpretation: Does the scope of the license in the 2021 Settlement Agreement extend to "updated/improved" products like the FlexSeries® Pro? The confidential terms of that agreement will be dispositive.
  • A determinative factual question will be one of technical and design comparison: Does the FlexSeries® Pro product actually practice the claims of the '528, D'504, and D'290 patents? As foreshadowed by the plaintiff, a central point of this analysis will be whether the product includes the specific "second set of...recesses" required by the '528 utility patent.
  • A key procedural question will be the relationship between the two parallel litigations: How will this E.D. Pa. action to enforce a settlement agreement interact with the D.N.J. patent infringement action, particularly given the E.D. Pa. court's alleged retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement?