Skull Shaver v. Ideavillage: Federal Circuit affirms, per Rule 36, the district court's (entirely correct) ruling that the accused Ideavillage product does not infringe the asserted design patent:
Remember, a design patent protects the actual shape and/or surface design that is shown in the drawings, *not* the larger design or product concept.
RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: SKULL SHAVER, LLC v. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-1457 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders.
Anyway, here are the pictures in the complaint that show the asserted DP and two accused product. Neither of these products infringe this design patent.
And it's not even close.
Blue Spring v. #ScheduleA - This complaint (filed by Boies Schiller) is going in my all-time worst design patent infringement claims file:
https://www.scribd.com/document/708509893/Blue-Spring-v-Schedule-A-Complaint
Not only are the two design patent infringement claims that are actually alleged in the complaint absolutely baseless, the plaintiff (or perhaps more correctly, their attorneys) don't seem to understand the difference between a design patent and a utility patent.
Sarah Fackrell
Sarah Fackrell