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:
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.
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.
Remember, to infringe a design patent, the accused product has to look the same as the whole claimed design. It's not enough that it does the same thing. Or looks like part of the claimed design.
Anyway, there is a design patent issued to an inventor with a name matching the plaintiff's--D990,207, which contains an extremely narrow claim for a design for a shelf:
Remember, design patents cover the shape claimed, not the general design concept. A quick skim of the exhibits suggests that the plaintiff may be confused about that basic principle of design patent law. #ConceptFallacy