Harel v. KGM - MSJ Brief

# 2489428 v1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
0:12-cv-61669 WPD-LSS
YIGAL COHEN HAREL, an individual;
INTEGRAL LOGISTICS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants,
v.
KGM INDUSTRIES CO., INC., a California
corporation, JOHN DOES 1-10 and XYZ
CORPORATIONS 1-10,
Defendants-Counterclaimants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________________________________ )
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
)
)
_____________________________________ )
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Case 0:12-cv-61669-WPD Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 1 of 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
- i -
# 2489428 v1
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................4
A. Asserted Patents .......................................................................................................4
B. The Thunderbird 2 ...................................................................................................4
C. Prior Litigation.........................................................................................................6
III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................7
A. Legal Standard .........................................................................................................7
1. Summary Judgment .....................................................................................7
2. Design Patent Infringement .........................................................................8
B. The Prior Art is Crowded.........................................................................................8
C. The Ignition Tower Designs of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs
Patents are Not Substantially the Same .................................................................10
D. The Push-Button Designs of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs
Patents are Not Substantially the Same .................................................................13
E. The Lever Hinges of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs Patents are
Dissimilar...............................................................................................................16
F. The Parties Designs as a Whole are Not Substantially the Same.........................18
IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page No(s).
- ii -
# 2489428 v1
Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc.,
439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................13, 16
Applied Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................7
Chefn Corp. v. Trudeau Corp.,
C08-1135 MJP, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47013
(W.D. Wash. June 4, 2009)..................................................................................................7
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................................7
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................... passim
Great Neck Saw Mfrs., Inc. v. Star Asia U.S.A. LLC,
727 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (W.D. Wash. 2010)...........................................................................7
Harel v. K.K. Intl Trading Corp.,
C.A. 12-cv-04527-BMC (E.D.N.Y.)..............................................................................6, 15
Keurig, Inc. v. JBR, Inc.,
No. 11-11941-FDS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73845
(D. Mass. May 24, 2013) .....................................................................................................7
L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.,
988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993)....................................................................................13, 16
Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.,
728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..........................................................................................10
In re Mann,
861 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988)........................................................................................2, 9
Minka Lighting, Inc. v. Maxim Lighting Intl,
No. 3:06-CV-995-K, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20948
(N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2009) .......................................................................................7, 12, 19
OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys,
122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................7, 8
Petersen Mfg. Co. v. Central Purchasing, Inc.,
740 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1984)............................................................................................7
(contd)
Page No(s).
- iii -
# 2489428 v1
Sofpool, LLC v. Kmart Corp.,
CIV. S-10-3333 LKK/JFM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76293
(E.D. Cal. May 29, 2013).....................................................................................................7
Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co., Ltd. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.,
665 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), affd, 2010 U.S. App.
LEXIS 9189 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2010) ..................................................................................8
Zidell v. Dexter,
262 F. 145 (9th Cir. 1920) .............................................................................................8, 12
OTHERAUTHORITIES
35 U.S.C. 102................................................................................................................................3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.........................................................................................................................1, 7
- 1 -
# 2489428 v1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56.1, Defendant and
Counterclaimant KGM Industries Co., Inc. (KGM) hereby moves this Court for summary
judgment that KGM does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. D501,274 (the 274 patent) and
D498,328 (the 328 patent). Pursuant to L.R. 7.1, KGM certifies that it has conferred with
counsel for Yigal Cohen Harel and Integral Logistics, LLC (collectively, Plaintiffs) which may
be affected by the relief sought in this motion, in a good faith effort to resolve and narrow the
issues.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF KGMS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging that KGMs Thunderbird torch lighter infringes the
274 and 328 design patents. KGMs Thunderbird torch lighter is the product of KGMs own
innovation and is not substantially similar to either the 274 patent or the 328 patent, particularly
in view of the prior art.
In 2001, long before Plaintiffs patent filings, KGM began marketing its Thunderbird
flint wheel lighter, a more modern version of the classic Zippo
design. At the same time, KGM

was selling its X-Sonic and Titanic lighters. Unlike the Thunderbird flint wheel lighter, KGMs
X-Sonic and Titanic lighters use push-button ignitions instead of the classic Zippo
flint wheel.
Recognizing the popularity of the push-button X-Sonic and Titanic lighters and the classic
Zippo
design, KGM modified its Thunderbird flint wheel lighter to include a push-button
ignition. The resulting design was the Thunderbird torch lighter that Plaintiffs allege infringes
the 274 and 328 patents. This progression in designs is shown below.
- 2 -
KGM Thunderbird
Flint Wheel
1
KGM
X-Sonic
2
KGM
Titanic
3
Accused
Thunderbird Torch
Lighter
Plaintiffs 274 and 328 patents were filed on February 24, 2004, years after KGM first
began selling its Thunderbird flint wheel, X-Sonic, and Titanic lighters. Plaintiffs now allege
that KGMs Thunderbird torch lighter infringes the 274 and 328 patents. Figures from the two
patents are shown below.
274 Patent 328 Patent
As the 274 and 328 patents each claim a distinct design, Plaintiffs apparently contend that their
two patents cover any Zippo
-type lighter with a push-button ignition. This is simply wrong.

The Federal Circuit has held that design patents have almost no scope and that the claim of a
design patent must be limited to what is shown in the drawings. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581,
1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
1
KGM has been selling its Thunderbird flint wheel lighter since at least 2001.
Razai Decl., Exh. 6 at KGM0000566, 598, 611.
2
KGMs X-Sonic Lighter was commercially available in 2001, three years before
the application date of the asserted patents. Exh. 6 at KGM0000579-580, 611.
3
KGMs Titanic lighter was commercially available in 2001, three years before the
application date of the asserted patents. Exh. 6 at KGM0000579-580, 611.
- 3 -
To find design patent infringement, the claimed design and the accused design must be so
similar in appearance that the resemblance would deceive the ordinary observer into believing
that the accused device is the same as the patented device. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665, 670 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). The scope of patent protection is further limited if
there are many prior designs similar to the patented design. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 675.
KGMs own Thunderbird flint wheel lighter was available years before the applications leading
to the asserted patents were filed and is prior art pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Moreover, the
prior art is replete with designs for Zippo
-type lighters, like the ones claimed in the asserted

patents, the majority of which were not considered by the PTO before granting the 274 and 328
patents. See Razai Decl., Exhs. 1 and 2 (the 274 and 328 patents) (citing only U.S. Patent No.
D188,507, U.S. Patent No. D320,467, and U.S. Patent No. 339,209). A few examples are shown
below.
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No.
6,247,920
4
Prior Art
Thunderbird
Flint Wheel
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No.
2,032,695
5
Prior Art
U.S. Patent
No. D188,507
6
4
U.S. Patent No. 6,247,920, issued to Zippo
Manufacturing Company, on June

19, 2001. Razai Decl., Exh. 13 (Bates No. KGM0000028 KGM0000032).
5
U.S. Patent No. 2,032,695 issued on Mar. 3, 1936. Razai Decl., Exh. 9 (Bates
Nos. KGM0000001-3).
6
U.S. Patent No. D188,507 issued on August 2, 1960. Razai Decl., Exh. 19 (Bates
No. KGM0000033).
- 4 -
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No.
3,247,688
7
Prior Art
Hague Intl
Reg. DM/056740
8
Prior Art
Titanic
Prior Art
X-Sonic
A comparison of the accused Thunderbird torch lighter with the patented designs, in view
of the prior art, establishes that no reasonable jury would find that KGMs accused Thunderbird
torch lighter is substantially similar to the patented designs. Rather, the Thunderbird torch
lighter is just one lighter in a field crowded with prior art that severely restricts the scope of
Plaintiffs patents. Accordingly, KGMs Thunderbird torch lighter does not infringe the 274 or
328 patents and KGM is entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Asserted Patents
The applications leading to the 274 patent and the 328 patent were filed on February 24,
2004. The 274 patent issued on January 25, 2005 and the 328 patent issued on November 9,
2004. The asserted patents each contain seven detailed figures forming the basis for the design
patent. The seven images are incorporated into the terms of the single claim which states The
ornamental design for the lighter, as shown and described. See Exhs. 1 and 2.
B. The Thunderbird 2
Since at least 2001, KGM has sold its Thunderbird line of lighters, including the
Thunderbird flint wheel lighter (Thunderbird 1), as part of KGMs American Vintage line of
lighters. Razai Decl., Exh. 6 (2001 Vector KGM Catalog) at KGM0000598-99, 611. The
Thunderbird 1 is a butane gas lighter which is ignited by rotating the flint wheel, creating a
7
U.S. Patent No. 3,247,688 issued on April 26, 1966. Razai Decl., Exh. 11 (Bates
Nos. KGM0000007-11).
8
Hague International Registration DM/056740 was published on May 7, 2001.
Razai Decl., Exh. 18 (Bates Nos. KGM0000041-42).
- 5 -
spark. Razai Decl., Exh. 4 (Expert Report of Ronald B. Kemnitzer) at Page 31, 2. The flame
emerges from a region of the lighter known as the ignition tower as shown below.
The ignition tower of this type of lighter must be perforated to permit the flow of air to the
combustion area, but restrictive enough to prevent wind from extinguishing the flame. Id. The
pattern of these holes is a distinctive visual element of these lighters. Id. While the Thunderbird
1 was successful in the marketplace, KGM was also experiencing great success with its own
push-button torch lighters. Accordingly, KGM decided to create a modified version of its
Thunderbird lighter that included a push-button igniter. Id.
The new Thunderbird torch lighter (Thunderbird 2) is a combination of the
Thunderbird 1 and the X-Sonic. The ignition tower shape and the perforation pattern on the
ignition tower of the Thunderbird 1 were retained. Exh. 4 at Page 32, 3. The flint wheel igniter
was replaced with a push-button, piezo-electric igniter. Id. 4. This element of the new design
was derived from KGMs own X-Sonic lighter, which has also been distributed by KGM since at
least 2001. Id.; see also Exh. 6 at KGM0000579, 611. The Thunderbird 2 actually modifies and
enhances the push-button from the X-Sonic by adding a curve to the top-surface of the push-
button that mimics the contours of a users thumb.
Thunderbird 1 X-Sonic Thunderbird 2
- 6 -
Plaintiffs have alleged that the Thunderbird 2 lighter and lighter insert infringe both the
274 and 328 patent. The term lighter insert refers to the lighter without its casing. Thus, the
Thunderbird 2 lighter is simply the Thunderbird 2 lighter insert, sold in a case. The Thunderbird
2 lighter and lighter insert are depicted below.
Accused Thunderbird 2
Lighter Insert
Accused Thunderbird 2
Lighter
C. Prior Litigation
The 274 and 328 patents are subject to a separate litigation. Harel v. K.K. Intl Trading
Corp., C.A. 12-cv-04527-BMC, (E.D.N.Y.). In their motion for Summary Judgment of Validity
in the K.K. Intl Trading Corp. matter,
9
Plaintiffs stated that the ignition tower, push-button and
lever hinge of the lighter design are the main forms that are united to create the signature of the
[asserted] patent[s] modern design aesthetic and distinctive profile. Razai Decl., Exh. 3 (Pls.
Mem. in Supp. of their Mot. For Summ. J., D.I. 40) at 13. Annotated versions of Figure 1 from
each of the asserted patents depicting these main forms are reproduced below.
9
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment of validity as well as Defendants
motion for summary judgment of invalidity related to the 274 patent are still pending in the K.K.
Intl Trading Corp. matter.
- 7 -
274 Patent Figure 1 328 Patent Figure 1
In light of Plaintiffs admission, this motion will focus primarily on the ignition tower,
push-button and lever hinge, and the overall appearance created by the combination of these
elements.
III. ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard
1. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record evidence shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is as appropriate in a patent case as in any
other type of case. Petersen Mfg. Co. v. Central Purchasing, Inc., 740 F.2d 1541, 1546 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In
patent cases, the burden of proof falls on the party asserting infringement. Applied Med.
Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The courts have
frequently granted summary judgment of non-infringement in design patent cases.
10
10
See e.g., Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678 (affg summary judgment of non-
infringement); OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, 122 F.3d 1396, 1404-07 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affg
summary judgment of non-infringement); Sofpool, LLC v. Kmart Corp., CIV. S-10-3333
LKK/JFM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76293, at *16-17 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) (granting
summary judgment of non-infringement); Keurig, Inc. v. JBR, Inc., No. 11-11941-FDS, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73845, at *25-26 (D. Mass. May 24, 2013) (granting summary judgment of
non-infringement); Great Neck Saw Mfrs., Inc. v. Star Asia U.S.A. LLC, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1038,
1048-59 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (granting summary judgment of non-infringement); Minka Lighting,
Inc. v. Maxim Lighting Intl, No. 3:06-CV-995-K, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20948, at *21 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 16, 2009) (granting summary judgment of non-infringement); Chefn Corp. v.
Trudeau Corp., C08-1135 MJP, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47013 (W.D. Wash. June 4, 2009)
- 8 -
2. Design Patent Infringement
When determining whether a design patent is infringed, the court compares the claim,
that is the patent drawings, with the accused design to determine whether they are substantially
the same. OddzOn Prods., 122 F.3d at 1405. To evaluate whether the claimed design and
accused design are substantially the same, the court applies the ordinary observer test.
Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678.
The ordinary observer test asks whether the claimed design and the accused design are so
similar in appearance that the resemblance would deceive the ordinary observer into believing
that the accused device is the same as the patented device. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670.
Moreover, using the ordinary observer standard, a patented design consisting only of bringing
together old elements with slight modifications of form is not infringed by another who uses
the same elements with his own variations of form . . . if his design is distinguishable by the
ordinary observer from the patented design. Zidell v. Dexter, 262 F. 145, 146 (9th Cir. 1920).
In most cases, resolution of the question of whether the ordinary observer would
consider the two designs to be substantially the same will benefit from a comparison of the
claimed and accused designs with the prior art. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678. Where
there are many examples of similar prior art designs . . . differences between the claimed and
accused designs that might not be noticeable in the abstract can become significant to the
hypothetical ordinary observer who is conversant with the prior art. Id.
Although the test for design patent infringement involves a determination of whether the
accused design is substantially similar to the patented design, the range of acceptable deviation
is quite small. See In re Mann, 861 F.2d at 1582 (holding that design patents have almost no
scope and that the claim of a design patent must be limited to what is shown in the drawings.)
B. The Prior Art is Crowded
An inescapable truth in this case is that push-button lighters, and particularly Zippo
-type
push-button lighters, look somewhat similar. The prior art is replete with lighter designs, each of
which have similarly sized, rectangular body shapes; ignition towers, often with adornments; and
lever hinges. Prior Art examples are shown below.
(granting summary judgment of non-infringement); Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co., Ltd. v.
Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 357, 368-69 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (granting summary
judgment of non-infringement), affd, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9189 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2010).
- 9 -
Prior Art
Zippo
Lighter
11
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No. 2,032,695
Prior Art
12
Prior Art
Prior Art
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No. D320,467
13
Prior Art
Prior Art
14
Prior Art
Thunderbird 1
11
This Zippo
Lighter was published in a catalog in 2002. Razai Decl., Exh. 8

(Bates Nos. KGM0000048-58).
12
U.S. Patent No. 2,157,191 issued on August 1, 1950,. Razai Decl., Exh. 10 (Bates
Nos. KGM0000004-6).
13
U.S. Patent No. D320,467 issued on October 1, 1991. Razai Decl., Exh. 15
(Bates Nos. KGM0000612-14).
14
U.S. Patent No. D339,209 issued on September 7, 1993. Razai Decl., Exh. 17
(Bates Nos. KGM0000036-37.)
- 10 -
Prior Art
Titanic
Prior art
X-Sonic
Prior Art
Hague Intl Reg. DM/056740
Moreover, as seen in the above chart, many of these lighters have push-button igniters
instead of flint wheels. Accordingly, no reasonable jury would find that the mere inclusion of a
push-button, ignition tower or lever hinge would render the designs substantially similar in the
eyes of the ordinary observer. Instead, the ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, will be
drawn to focus on differences between the designs that may not have been noticeable in the
abstract. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678.
Where, as here, a field is crowded with many references relating to the design of the
same type of appliance the scope of protection of the patent [is] limited to a narrow range.
Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 675 (quoting Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d
1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The field of lighters is extremely crowded. More specifically, the
extensive prior art for lighters designed to fit in Zippo
-type cases, a field that has been under

development for over 75 years, affords only a very narrow range of protection for the asserted
patents.
C. The Ignition Tower Designs of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs Patents are Not
Substantially the Same
KGM will begin by discussing the ignition tower, one of the elements that Plaintiffs have
described as a main form of the patented design. Although all three designs at issue depict
Zippo
-type lighters with ignition towers, ignition towers are so common in the prior art that the
mere inclusion of an ignition tower is not protectable. Rather, the ornamentation of the ignition
tower is the only protectable element.
As evidenced by the comparison of the claimed designs of the 274 and 328 patents and
the design of the Thunderbird 2, depicted below, the designs of the ignition towers are
significantly different. While the ignition tower of the 328 patent has no surface ornamentation
- 11 -
and the design of the 274 patent has five indented vertical lines, the Thunderbird 2 has eight
decorative round indentations or dimples on each side of the ignition tower. See Exh. 4 at Page
38, 18. The ignition towers of the patented designs are also wider than that of the Thunderbird
2. Id.
274 Patent Figure 4 Thunderbird 2 328 Patent Figure 4
An ordinary observer conversant with the prior art would find these differences in the
ornamentation of the ignition tower to be significant, and any reasonable jury would so find. As
can be seen below, the ornamental design of the Thunderbird 2 is substantially similar to the
designs in the prior art. In fact, KGM has been using the same Zippo
-type design of the

ignition tower for years in its own Thunderbird 1, which is prior art to both the 274 and 328
patents. Exh. 6 at KGM0000598-99, 611.
Thunderbird 2 Prior Art
Thunderbird 1
Prior Art
Zippo
Lighter
- 12 -
Prior Art
Prior Art
Prior Art
A patented design that consists only of bringing together old elements with slight
modifications of form is not infringed by another who uses the same elements with his own
variations of form . . . if his design is distinguishable by the ordinary observer from the patented
design. Minka Lighting, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20948, at *17 (quoting Zidell v. Dexter, 262
F. 145, 146 (9th Cir. 1920)). Here, KGM modernized the famous prior art design of the Zippo
ignition tower with its Thunderbird 1, then simply modified its own Thunderbird 1 design to add
a push-button ignition, resulting in the Thunderbird 2. See Exh. 4 at Pages 31-33, 1-5. The
resulting design of the Thunderbird 2 is easily distinguishable by an ordinary observer from the
patented designs of the 274 and 328 patents.
Moreover, the ignition towers of the 274 and 328 patents look more like the prior art
than the Thunderbird 2.
274 Patent Figure 4
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No. D188,507 Thunderbird 2
- 13 -
328 Patent Figure 1
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No. D339,209 Thunderbird 2
Accordingly, an ordinary observer conversant with the prior art would understand even minor
differences in the ignition tower dcor to render the designs dissimilar. In light of the prior art
and the substantial differences between the dimples on the ignition tower of the Thunderbird 2 as
compared to the vertical lines on the ignition tower of the 274 patent and the unadorned ignition
tower of the 328 patent, the ordinary observer would not find the Thunderbird 2 to be
substantially the same as the 274 and 328 patents; and no reasonable jury would conclude
otherwise.
D. The Push-Button Designs of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs Patents are Not
Substantially the Same
Both the patented designs and the Thunderbird 2 depict Zippo
-type lighters with push-

button ignitions. However, the similarities end there. As the Federal Circuit has held, a design
patent only protects the non-functional aspects of an ornamental design. Amini Innovation Corp.
v. Anthony California, Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Although certain elements
of the design may serve a utilitarian purpose, only the ornamental aspects of the design are the
proper basis of the design patent. L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123
(Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, the mere fact that the lighter has a push-button ignition is not protectable.
The ornamentation of this functional element is the only proper basis of design patent protection.
Id. However, the ornamentation of the Thunderbird 2s push-button is different from that of the
push-button in the 274 and 328 patents.
- 14 -
The contours of the push-buttons create distinctly different profiles in the two designs,
and no reasonable jury could find otherwise. The top surface of the 328 patents push-button
extends outward in a straight line, running parallel to the top surface of the ignition tower. See
Exh. 4 at Page 38, 18. The top surface of the 274 patents push-button slopes downward and
away from the ignition tower in a straight line. Exh. 4 at Page 48, 36-37. The push-button in
the Thunderbird 2, however, curves downward and away from the ignition tower in a concave
shape that mimics the curvature of the thumb. See Exhibit 4 at Page 38, 18. Moreover, the
push-button of the 274 patent also has a unique angular panel that extends from the ignition
tower to the end of the lighter beneath the push-button. Exh. 4 at Page 48, 37. The
Thunderbird 2 does not have any such structure.
Any reasonable jury would find that the ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art,
would not find lighter designs with these differences to be substantially similar. The use of
push-buttons in lighters was well known in the art prior to the filing of both the 274 and 328
patents. In fact, the push button of the 274 patent looks more like KGMs own prior art X-Sonic
lighter than the Thunderbird 2. As can be seen in the below images, the contours of the push-
button of both the 274 patent and the X-Sonic have straight, diagonal top-surfaces. Unlike the
274 patent, the Thunderbird 2 departs from the prior art by using a push-button with a top
surface that curves downwards, mimicking the contours of a thumb.
- 15 -
Thunderbird 2
Prior Art
X-Sonic
274 Patent Figure 4
The 328 patent also depicts only minor departures from the prior art. For example,
KGMs own prior art Titanic lighter and the prior art design disclosed in U.S. Design Patent No.
D339,209 each have a push-button ignition that closely resembles the design of the 328 patent.
Not only is the 328 patent more similar to the prior art than to the Thunderbird 2, but, aside
from the fact that they are both in fact push-button ignitions, the curving push-button of the
Thunderbird 2 bears little resemblance to the flat push-button of the 328 patent.
Prior Art
Titanic
328 Patent Figure 4
Prior Art
Additionally, the Thunderbird 2 and the 274 and 328 patents have different grip lines.
Like the push-button, the use of grip lines is well known in the prior art and serves the function
of preventing fingers from slipping. Razai Decl., Exh. 5 (April 24, 2013, deposition of Yigal
Cohen Harel in Harel v. K.K. Intl Trading Corp., C.A. 12-cv-04527-BMC (E.D.N.Y.)) at
140:15-141:2. Thus, the only protectable elements of the grip lines are the ornamental designs.
As can be seen below, both the 274 and 328 patents have numerous grip lines. The Thunderbird
2, however, has only four. An ordinary observer aware of the prior art, and particularly U.S.
- 16 -
Patent No. D339,209, would find that varying the number of grip lines on the push-button to be a
significant difference.
Thunderbird 2
274 Patent
Figure 2
Prior Art
328 Patent
Figure 2
The ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be aware that minor differences
distinguish lighter designs in this crowded field. With this knowledge, the ordinary observer
would not find the Thunderbird 2 to be substantially the same as the 274 or 328 patents, and
any reasonable jury would find so.
E. The Lever Hinges of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs Patents are Dissimilar
The lever hinge in the 274 and 328 patents is also visually different from that of the
Thunderbird 2. The lever hinge in the Zippo
-type lighter depicted in the 274 and 328 patents

functions to hold the cap of the lighter casing in place. See Exh. 4 at Page 21, 36. As
discussed above, the mere presence of this functional element is not protectable. Amini, 439
F.3d at 1370-71. It is only the ornamentation of the lever hinge that is the proper basis of design
patent protection. L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123. However, the design of the lever hinge in the
274 and 328 patents, particularly in view of the prior art, is different from that of the
Thunderbird 2.
As shown below in red, the use of a square lever hinge in the designs of Zippo
-type
lighters was well known in the art.
- 17 -
274 Patent
Figure 6
328 Patent
Figure 6
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No.
2,517,191
Prior Art
U.S. Patent No.
2,032,695
The two pieces of prior art, depicted above, were filed over fifty years before the 274 and 328
patents, and each discloses the use of square lever hinges to secure the cap of a Zippo
-type
lighter. Where there are many examples of similar prior art designs . . . differences between the
claimed and accused designs that might not be noticeable in the abstract can become significant
to the hypothetical ordinary observer who is conversant with the prior art. Egyptian Goddess,
543 F.3d at 678.
Pictured below are overhead birds eye views of the patented designs and the
Thunderbird 2. This view shows clear differences between the lever hinges of the designs. The
lever hinge of the patented designs consists of two parallel panes. In contrast, the lever hinge of
the Thunderbird 2 forms a backwards C. The ordinary observer could easily distinguish the
backwards C design of the Thunderbird 2 from the unconnected parallel panes design of the
274 and 328 patents. No reasonable jury could find otherwise.
In a crowded art, such as that seen in lighters, every design variation takes on heightened
importance and must be thoroughly considered. See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678 (Where
there are many examples of similar prior art designs, . . . differences between the claimed and
accused designs that might not be noticeable in the abstract can become significant to the
- 18 -
hypothetical ordinary observer who is conversant with the prior art.). As explained in detail
above, both the asserted patents and the Thunderbird 2 merely bring together old elements with
slight modifications of form. However, each design incorporates significantly different
modifications of the prior art. Accordingly, no reasonable jury could conclude that the ordinary
observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the Thunderbird 2 and the
patented designs are the same.
F. The Parties Designs as a Whole are Not Substantially the Same
As Plaintiffs admit, it is the ignition tower, the push-button, and the lever hinge of the
lighter designs in question that are the main forms that are united to create the design
aesthetic and distinctive profile of each patented design. See Exh. 3 at 13. However, visual
comparison of the Thunderbird 2 to the 274 and 328 patents clearly demonstrates that there are
significant, immediately apparent, differences between the main forms of the lighters. These
differences are at least as apparent when the three main forms are viewed collectively as when
they are viewed individually, as shown in the pictures below.
In particular, the overall ornamentation of the top portions of the lighters is strikingly
different, and no reasonable jury could find otherwise. No reasonable jury could overlook the
dominating dimples on the Thunderbird 2 and the very different vertical lines of the 274 patent
- 19 -
and unadorned appearance of the 328 patent. No reasonable jury could overlook the curving
push-button on the Thunderbird 2 and the very different diagonally, sloping push-button of the
274 patent and the completely flat push-button of the 328 patent. No reasonable jury could
overlook the four, spaced grip lines on the push-button of the Thunderbird 2 and the multitude of
grip lines on both the 274 and 328 patents. And finally, no reasonable jury could overlook the
wholly different appearances of the backwards C lever hinge in the Thunderbird 2, compared
to the two parallel panes appearance of the lever hinge in the 274 and 328 patents. The
aggregation of these differences create a distinct overall visual impression and overwhelm the
similarities between the designs. Minka Lighting, 2009 US Dist. LEXIS 20948, , at *15.
As in Egyptian Goddess, KGMs Thunderbird 2 lighter could not reasonably be viewed
as so similar to the claimed design[s] that a purchaser familiar with the prior art would be
deceived by the similarity between the claimed and accused designs, inducing him to purchase
one supposing it to be the other. Id. at 683. Accordingly, the Thunderbird 2 does not infringe
the 274 and 328 patents and summary judgment should be granted in favor of KGM on the
issue of non-infringement.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, KGM respectfully requests that the Court grant KGMs
motion for summary judgment and declare that the Thunderbird 2 Lighter and Lighter Insert do
not infringe the 274 patent and the 328 patent.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 13, 2013 By: s/Kevin P. Crosby
Kevin Crosby, Esq. (FBN 654360)
Email: kevin.crosby@grey-robinson.com
GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1850
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 761-8111
Facsimile: (954) 761-8112
Steven J. Nataupsky, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: steven.nataupsky@kmob.com
Ali S. Razai, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: ali.razai@kmob.com
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
- 20 -
2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 760-0404
Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
Attorneys for Defendant,
KGM INDUSTRIES CO., INC.
- 21 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 13, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court for the Southern District of Florida using the CM/ECF
system, which will send an electronic notice to all attorneys of record identified on the attached
Service List.
By: s/Kevin P. Crosby
- 22 -
SERVICE LIST
Yigal Cohen Harel et al. v. KGM Industries Co., Inc. et al.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 0:12-cv-61669 WPD
Phillip E. Holden, Esq.
Email: phillip@integrityforjustice.com
Alex Alvarez, Esq.
Email: alex@integrityforjustice.com
THE ALVAREZ LAW FIRM
355 Palermo Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Tel: (305) 444-7675
Fax: (305) 444-0075
Meichelle R. MacGregor, Esq.
Email: mrm@cll.com
Arlana S. Cohen, Esq.
Email: asc@cll.com
Mark Montague, Esq.
Email: mxm@cll.com
Michael G. Gabriel, Esq.
Email: mgg@cll.com
COWAN LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-6799
Tel: (212) 790-9200
Fax: (212) 575-0671
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
YIGAL COHEN HAREL and INTEGRAL LOGISTICS, LLC
Case 0:12-cv-61669-WPD Document 42-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 1 of 6
0:12-cv-61669 WPD-LSS
limited liability company,
v.
corporation, JOHN DOES 1-10 and XYZ
CORPORATIONS 1-10,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECLARATION OF ALI S. RAZAI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
I, Ali S. Razai, declare as follows:
1. My name is Ali S. Razai. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and competent to
execute this Declaration, and the following statements are true and correct based on my personal
knowledge or information transmitted to me from records made at or near the time of the
"
transactions referenced therein by person( s) with personal knowledge thereof.
2. I am a partner with the law firm Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLC. I serve as
counsel in this case for Defendant and Counterclaimant KGM Industries Co., Inc. ("KGM").
-1-
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No.
D501,274.
D498,328.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs'
Memorandum in Suppport of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Hare! v. K.K. Int 'l Trading
Corp., C.A. 12-cv-04527-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), D.l. 40.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the Expert Report of
Ronald B. Kemnitzer, FIDSA, served on May 24, 2013, filed in support of KGM's motion for
summary judgment.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the April
24, 2013, deposition of Yigal Cohen Harel in Hare! v. K.K. Int'l Trading Corp., C.A. 12-cv-
04527-BMC (E.D.N.Y.).
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a Vector-KGM Catalog
published in 2001, bearing Bates Nos. KGM0000566-611.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the June 12, 2013
Declaration of Yigal Cohen Harel in Hare! v. K.K. Int'l Trading Corp., C.A. 12-cv-04527-BMC
(E.D.N.Y.), D.l. 38.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Zippo Catalog,
published in 2002, bearing Bates Nos. KGM0000048-58.
2,032,695, bearing Bates Nos. KGM0000001-3.
-2-
D320,467, bearing Bates Nos. KGM0000612-14.
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of Korean Patent
Publication No. 1995-0005453, bearing Bates Nos. KGM0000043-47.
D339,209, bearing Bates Nos. KGM0000036-37.
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of Hague International
Registration DM/056740, bearing Bate Nos. KGM0000041-42.
D188,507, bearing Bates No. KGM0000033.
22. Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs'
Infringement Contentions, served on February 4, 2013.
-3-
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Ali s. ~ z i
-4-
-5-
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 13, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court for the Southern District of Florida using the CM/ECF
system, which will send an electronic notice to all attorneys of record identified on the attached
Service List.
By: s/ Kevin P. Crosby
Kevin P. Crosby
SERVICE LIST
Yigal Cohen Harel et al. v. KGM Industries Co., Inc. et al.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 0:12-cv-61669 WPD
Alex Alvarez, Esq.
355 Palermo Avenue
Tel: (305) 444-7675
Fax: (305) 444-0075
Email: mrm@cll.com
Email: asc@cll.com
Mark Montague, Esq.
Email: mxm@cll.com
Email: mgg@cll.com
1133 Avenue ofthe Americas
Tel: (212) 790-9200
Fax: (212) 575-0671
YIGAL COHEN HAREL and INTEGRAL LOGISTICS, LLC
-6-
EXHIBIT 1

I IIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111
USOOD501274S
(12) United States Design Patent (lo) Patent No.: US D501,274 S
** Jan.25,2005
Cohen Harel (45) Date of Patent:
(54) LIGHTER
(76) Inventor: Yigal Cohen Hare), 2905 Windmill
Ranch Rd., Weston, FL (US) 33331
(**) Term: 14 Years
(21) Appl. No.: 29/200,149
(22) Filed: Feb. 24, 2004
(51) LOC (7) Cl. .................................................... 27-05
(52) U.S. Cl. ...................................................... D27/154
(58) Field of Search ........................ D27/141, 152-161;
(56)
431/132, 142-146, 151-153, 254-256,
273-277
References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
D188,507 S * 8/1960 Smith ........................ D27/159
D320,467 S * 10/1991 Ichikawa ................... D27/159
D339,209 S * 9/1993 Ichikawa ................... D27/157
* cited by examiner
Primary Examiner-Jennifer Rivard
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Cowan, Liebowitz &
Latman, P.C.; R. Lewis Gable
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for the lighter, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a top, front and left side perspective view of the
lighter;
FIG. 2 is a top plan view of the embodiment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view of the embodiment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 4 is a front elevation of the embodiment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 5 is a left side view of the embodiment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 6 is a back elevation of the embodiment of FIG. 1; and,
FIG. 7 is a right side view of the embodiment of FIG. 1.
1 Claim, 1 Drawing Sheet
U.S. Patent Jan.25,2005 US D501,274 S
II II
:cj
',,
Ill l!l
I
I
i i
I
I
I
I
I
I i
FIG.5 FIG.4
FIG.3
EXHIBIT 2

111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
USOOD498328S
(12) United States Design Patent (lo) Patent No.: US D498,328 S
** Nov. 9, 2004
Cohen Harel (45) Date of Patent:
(54) LIGHTER
(76) Inventor: Yigal Cohen Hare), 2905 Windmill
Ranch Rd., Weston, FL (US) 33331
(**) Term: 14 Years
(21) Appl. No.: 29/200,257
(22) Filed: Feb.24,2004
(51) LOC (7) Cl. .................................................... 27-05
(52) U.S. Cl. ...................................................... D27/154
(58) Field of Search ........................ D27/141, 152-160;
(56)
431/132, 142-146, 151-153, 254-256,
273-277
References Cited
D320,467 S * 10/1991 Ichikawa ................... D27/159
D339,209 S * 9/1993 Ichikawa ................... D27/157
* cited by examiner
Primary Examiner-Jennifer Rivard
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Cowan, Liebowitz &
Latman, P.C.; R. Lewis Gable
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for the lighter, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a top, front and right side perspective view of the
lighter;
FIG. 2 is a top plan view of the embodiment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view of the embodiment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 4 is a front elevation view of the embodiment of FIG.
1;
FIG. 5 is a left side view of the embodiment of FIG. 1;
FIG. 6 is a back elevation view of the embodiment of FIG.
1; and,
1 Claim, 1 Drawing Sheet
U.S. Patent Nov. 9, 2004 US D498,328 S
I t=-1
FIG.l
FIG.5 FIG.4
FIG.3 FIG.2
EXHIBIT 3

21934/043/1401891.1

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

INTEGRAL LOGISTICS, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company,
Plaintiffs,

v.

K.K. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP.,
K.K. INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No: 1:12-cv-04527-BMC

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

i

21934/043/1401891.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................ 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 3
A. Plaintiffs And Their Business ............................................................................................. 4
B. Defendants Business .......................................................................................................... 5
C. The Design Patent in Suit ................................................................................................... 5
D. The Accused Products......................................................................................................... 6
III. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................................. 6
IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
A. Summary Judgment Standard ............................................................................................. 7
B. KKs Lighters Infringe The 274 Patent ...................................................................... 8
1. The Test For Design Patent Infringement ....................................................................... 8
2. KK Infringes Under The Ordinary Observer Test ........................................................ 12
C. KK Cannot Overcome The Presumption Of Patent Validity ............................................ 14
1. KKs Obviousness Argument Is Insufficient As A Matter Of Law.............................. 14
2. There Is No Support For KKs Functionality Argument .............................................. 20
3. KKs Invalidity Claim Under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 112 Should Be Dismissed.......... 21
V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 21

ii

21934/043/1401891.1

Page(s)
CASES
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd.,
678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................ passim
Contessa Food Prods., Inc v. Conagra, Inc.
282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................8, 11
Crocs, Inc. v. Intl Trade Commn.,
598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................10
Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,
101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................16
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................10, 11
Famosa, Corp. v. Gaiam, Inc.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22437, 102 U.S.P.Q.2D 1065 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ...................................8
Gorham Co. v. White,
81 U.S. 511 (1871) ...............................................................................................8, 9, 10, 11, 13
Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................15
L.A. Gear v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.,
988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993)............................................................................................8, 20
Mitchell v. Shane,
350 F.3d 39 (2d Cir.2003)..........................................................................................................8
OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,
122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................11
Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,
597 F. 3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010).........................................................................................10, 21
Scientific Components Corp. v. ISIS Surface Mounting, Inc.,
539 F. Supp. 2d 653 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) .......................................................................................8
Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................14
iii

21934/043/1401891.1
Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Prods. Intl, Ltd.
157 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir.1998)...................................................................................................8
Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe, Inc.,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112846 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2011) .......................................................10
STATUTES
35 U.S.C. 102 ..........................................................................................................................7, 21
35 U.S.C. 103 ....................................................................................................................7, 15, 20
35 U.S.C. 112 ..........................................................................................................................7, 21
35 U.S.C. 171 ..............................................................................................................................15
35 U.S.C. 282 ..............................................................................................................................14
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................1, 7

1

21934/043/1401891.1
Plaintiffs Yigal Cohen Harel (Harel) and Integral Logistics, LLC (Integral) submit
this memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a), seeking judgment in their favor against Defendant K.K. International Trading
Corp. (KK)
1
on Plaintiffs claim for infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D501,274 (the
274 patent).
2

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case is not complex and presents a single issue for the Courts determination
whether KKs accused lighters and lighter inserts
3
are substantially similar to the design of the
274 patent owned by Harel and licensed to Integral. Harels patented design and KKs lighter
and lighter insert are pictured below.
Patented Design Accused KK Lighter Insert and Lighter

1
Although K.K. International Corp. is named as a defendant on the Complaint,
discovery has confirmed that there is no such separate entity.
2
The Complaint asserted, in the alternative, infringement of Patent No. D498,328 (328
patent). The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the claims and counterclaims relating to
that patent on June 11, 2013. Thus, the only patent at issue is the 274 patent.
3
The term lighter insert refers to a functionally complete lighter that is intended for use
in a lighter case. SUF 20 (Kriheli Dep. 45:19-46:2). The term lighter as used herein refers to
a lighter that is already inserted into a case or that is integrated with an outer case.
2

21934/043/1401891.1
As demonstrated by even a cursory comparison of KKs accused products with Harels
patented design, the test for infringement has been met, i.e., an ordinary observer, familiar with
the prior art, would be deceived into thinking that the design of KKs accused products is the
same as the patented design. KKs accused lighters appropriate the new and distinctly strong,
clean, modern profile of Harels patented design. While KK may point to small differences in
detail to try to avoid a finding of infringement, such differences are, as a matter of law,
insufficient. As discussed below, the test for design patent infringement does not require
complete identity of design differences are anticipated. Rather, the test only requires
substantial similarity between the respective designs as viewed by the hypothetical ordinary
observer in the context of earlier designs (the prior art). When viewed in this context, it is
undeniable that KK is infringing Harels design. No reasonable jury could find otherwise, and,
summary judgment should be granted to Plaintiffs.
While KK has asserted a counterclaim challenging the validity of Harels patent, KK
cannot sustain its burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Unable to find
a lighter with the same design as the patented design in the prior art, KK attempts to prove
obviousness of the patented design by relying on multiple allegedly earlier lighter designs.
Then, using Harels design as a blueprint, KK seeks to combine various design elements from
earlier lighters to draw a design that approximates Harels. As discussed below, KKs approach
is contrary to the mandated methodology for showing obviousness. As reiterated last year by the
Federal Circuit in Apple, Inc. v Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
the test for obviousness requires the patent challenger to point to a primary prior art reference
that has basically the same design characteristics as the patented design. Only if such a
primary prior art reference is identified can secondary references be combined with the primary
3

21934/043/1401891.1
prior art reference and then only if such a combination would have been obvious to a designer
of ordinary skill. The primary prior art reference that KK relies upon in its Invalidity
Contentions is the Zippo lighter depicted below.
Prior Art (Zippo lighter) Patented Design

A visual comparison of the Harel design with the Zippo lighter shows that the Zippo
lighter design is not basically the same as Harels patented design. The Zippo lighter design
has a vintage or retro look, reflecting of the fact that it is a product of the 1940s era design
ethos with an overall hand-crafted appearance. Harels design, in contrast, has a completely
different aesthetic with a clean, modern and sleek profile that is easily identifiable in various
views. No reasonable jury could find that the Zippo brand lighter presents the same visual
impression as Harels patented design. Apple, 678 F.3d at 1331-1332. For these reasons, and,
as explained further explained below, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The factual background with supporting citations to the record is fully set forth in the
accompanying Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SUF). This motion is
also supported by the accompanying Declarations of Meichelle R. MacGregor, Esq., dated June
12, 2013 (MacGregor Decl.), the declaration of Yigal Cohen Harel, dated June 12, 2013
4

21934/043/1401891.1
(Harel Decl.) and the expert report of Russell Robertson (Robertson Report), attached as
Exhibit F to the MacGregor Decl., along with their respective exhibits.
A. Plaintiffs And Their Business
Harel is an individual residing in Florida. SUF 1. He has a degree in electrical
engineering from the ORT Braude Academic College of Engineering in Israel and has been in
the lighter and smoking accessories business for over 25 years. (Id. 7.) Harel is a designer and
innovator in the field of lighter designs and is named as an inventor in over two dozen United
States design patents for lighter designs. (Id. 9.) Prior to founding Integral, Harel owned
several other lighter companies abroad, for which he served as a lighter designer. (Id. 8.) In
2003, Harel founded Integral to operate his lighter business and is an owner of Integral. (Id. 3-
4.)
Harel created the design of the 274 patent and received a patent for the design in January
2005. (Id. 10-11.) He is the sole owner and sole inventor of the 274 patent. (Id. 11.) Harel
has licensed the 274 patent to both Integral and Blazer Products, Inc. (Blazer). (Id. 12.)
Each company has sold a lighter insert called the Z-Plus! under their license. (Id. 13.) The
design of the Z-plus! lighter insert is an embodiment of the design claimed in the 274 Patent.
(Id. 14.) Integral began selling a Z-Plus lighter insert with the patented design in May 2004.
(Id. 15.)
Since 2008, only Integral has distributed and sold the Z-plus! lighter insert under license
from Harel. (Id. 16.) More recently, Integral has sold both lighters and lighter inserts that use
the patented design. (Id. 17.) Integral sells its lighters to both bricks and mortar retailers and
online retailers but does not sell directly to consumers. (Id. 18.)
5

21934/043/1401891.1
In the lighter business, the term lighter insert refers to a functionally complete lighter
that is intended for use in a lighter case. (Id. 20.) Integrals Z-plus! lighter inserts which use
the patented design are sized to fit in various lighter cases, including Integral lighter cases,
Zippo lighter cases, and other third-party lighter cases. (Id. 21.)
B. Defendants Business
KK sells smoking accessories such as lighters and cigar cutters. SUF 22. KK was
founded in 1991 and is owned by Mihail and Edward Kriheli, who are brothers. (Id. 26.) KK
sells its products through distributors and also directly to consumers. (Id. 24.)
In 2006, the year after the 274 patent issued and after Integral began selling the patented
design, KK obtained the accused Jetline Z-Torch lighter from its Chinese manufacturer. (Id.
26.) The Jetline Z-Torch lighter was not commercially successful. (Id. 27.) Thus, KK came
up with the idea of making a lighter insert similar to the design of the Jetline Z-Torch lighter in
approximately 2011 and started having it manufactured in China in 2012. (Id. 28.) KKs
lighter insert is directly competitive with Integrals Z-Plus! lighter insert licensed to Integral
under the 274 patent. (Id. 29.)
A re-sized version of the design for the Z-Torch lighter was used for the Jetline Z-Torch
lighter insert. (Id. 30.) The rough surface on the bottom of the metal-frame part of the Jetline
Z-Torch lighter is a functional element that holds the lighter in the lighter case so it will not slip
out. (Id. 31.) While KK designed the Z-Torch lighter insert for a Zippo brand lighter case, KK
did not use the design of the Zippo lighter when designing the Z-Torch lighter insert. (Id. 32.)
C. The Design Patent in Suit
Plaintiffs assert United States Patent Nos. D501,274 (274 patent). SUF 10. The
application for the 274 patent is entitled Lighter and was filed on February 24, 2004 and
6

21934/043/1401891.1
granted on January 25, 2005. (Id.) The patent claims the ornamental design for the lighter, as
shown and described. (Id.) The patent includes seven drawings showing different views of the
patented lighter design. (Id.)
D. The Accused Products
KK sells two accused products, the Jetline Z-Torch lighter and the Jetline Z-Torch lighter
insert, (SUF 25) samples of which are depicted in the photographs in Plaintiffs Supplemental
Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions, Ex. A and C. (MacGregor Decl.,
4, Exh. C).
4

The Jetline Z-Torch lighter is sold with removable plastic grips. SUF 33. The plastic
grips or trim on the outside of the lighter case of the Z-Torch lighter are removable in use and
slide off the lighter case. (Id. 34.)
III. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Complaint was filed on September 11, 2012. In addition to infringement of the 274
patent, the Complaint also asserted, in the alternative, infringement of U.S. Patent No. D498,328
(the 328 patent). In an effort to streamline the issues in the case, Plaintiffs withdrew their
claim for infringement of the 328 patent against the accused products, and the parties filed a
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of the claims and counterclaims relating to the 328 patent on
June 11, 2013, which was so ordered by the Court on June 11, 2013.
KK filed its Answer and Counterclaims on November 5, 2012, asserting several
affirmative defenses and counterclaims. KK asserts the following as affirmative defenses: failure
to state a claim, patent non-infringement, patent invalidity, failure to mitigate damages, non-
entitlement to equitable relief, lack of willful infringement, lack of irreparable harm, adequate

4
The actual sample products are available to the Court if requested but these physical
exhibits are not filed with these papers.
7

21934/043/1401891.1
remedy at law and limitation on damages. KK also counterclaimed for declarations of patent
non-infringement and invalidity.

This motion is directed to KKs non-infringement and
invalidity defenses and counterclaims only.
Plaintiffs served their Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions on
January 16, 2013. (MacGregor Decl. Ex. B)Plaintiffs served their Supplemental Disclosure Of
Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions on April 4, 2013. (MacGregor Decl. Ex. C).
KK served its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (hereinafter Invalidity Contentions)
(MacGregor Decl. Ex. D) on February 13, 2013. KK did not serve any Supplemental Invalidity
Contentions. Fact discovery closed on April 30, 2013. No trial date has been set.
KKs Answer and Counterclaims asserted as a Third Affirmative Defense and as a
Second Counterclaim that the 274 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy sections 102, 103 and
112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 and 112. However KKs Invalidity Contentions are
limited to an argument of failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. 103 only. Section 103 pertains to
invalidity based on obviousness. Accordingly, KKs claims of invalidity based on failure to
comply with 35 U.S.C. 102 and 112 should be dismissed.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is
material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under controlling law. Mitchell v. Shane,
350 F.3d 39, 47 (2d Cir.2003). The court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, but only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Scientific
8

21934/043/1401891.1
Components Corp. v. ISIS Surface Mounting, Inc., 539 F. Supp. 2d 653, 657 (E.D.N.Y. 2008),
quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).
B. KKs Lighters Infringe The 274 Patent
Infringement in a design patent case is a question of fact that the patentee must prove by
a preponderance of the evidence. L.A. Gear v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1124 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is as appropriate in a design patent case as it is in any other case
where there is no material dispute of fact as to the substantial similarity between the patented
design and the ornamental design of the accused product. See, e.g., Contessa Food Prods., Inc v.
Conagra, Inc. 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (reversed and remanded because district court
failed to consider entire ornamental design including parts visible at some point during normal
use of product); Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Prods. Intl, Ltd. 157 F.3d 1311 (Fed.
Cir.1998) (reversed and remanded because incorrect legal standard for infringement was
applied); see also Famosa, Corp. v. Gaiam, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22437, 102
U.S.P.Q.2D 1065 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
1. The Test For Design Patent Infringement
The test for design patent infringement was set forth by the Supreme Court in Gorham
Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871), which involved infringement of a design patent for the handles
of tablespoons and forks. The Court in Gorham expressed the test for design patent infringement
as follows:
[I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives,
two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an
observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented
is infringed by the other. 81 U.S. at 528.

The patented handle design in Gorham and the two infringing handle designs are
depicted below:
9

21934/043/1401891.1
Patented design Infringing Products

Id. at 521.
The Gorham Court also made clear that complete identity between the patented design
and the design of the accused product is not required to find infringement. While there must be
sameness of appearance mere difference of lines in the drawing or sketch ... or slight
variances in configuration ... will not destroy the substantial identity. Id. at 526-27. In finding
infringement, the Court concluded that whatever differences there may be between the
plaintiffs design and those of the defendant in details of ornament, they are still the same in
general appearance and effect, so much alike that in the market and with purchasers they would
pass for the same thingso much alike that even persons in the trade would be in danger of
being deceived. Id. at 531.
The modern definition of the Gorham ordinary observer test as set forth by the Federal
Circuit in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2008) is whether
an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into thinking that the accused
10

21934/043/1401891.1
design was the same as the patented design.
5
Thus, the modern test for design patent
infringement incorporates a consideration of the prior art in that the hypothetical ordinary
observer is now presumed to be familiar with the prior art.
Applying the ordinary observer test requires a side-by-side view of the drawings of
the [design patent] and the accused products. Crocs, Inc. v. Intl Trade Commn., 598 F.3d
1294, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F. 3d 1288, 1295 (Fed. Cir.
2010). In making the visual comparison between the patented design and the accused design, the
emphasis is on the overall effect of the two designs, and not on individual elements of the
designs because concentration on small differences in isolation distracts from the overall
impression of the claimed ornamental features. Crocs, 598 F. 3d at 1303-4.
An example of the application of the modern ordinary observer test can be found in
Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112846 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2011),
affd, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10265 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Victor Stanley, the court found
infringement of a patent on a bench design. In finding infringement, the court viewed the
patented design and the accused Nebilli design alongside a prior art Chipman design as follows:

5
Cases prior to Egyptian Goddess should be read with caution in that they may employ the now
defunct point of novelty test, a separate and additional test to Gorhams ordinary observer
test that the Federal Circuit eliminated in Egyptian Goddess.

11

21934/043/1401891.1

Id. at *55.
The ordinary observer analysis is not limited to those features of the accused product
visible at the point of sale, but encompasses all ornamental features visible at any time during
normal use of the product. See Contessa Food Prods., at 1379, Gorham, 81 U.S. at 528. In this
regard, while the KK Jetline Z-Torch lighter is sold with outer plastic grips that slide over the
lighter case, those grips are removable during use to fully reveal the underlying lighter design.
SUF 33-34.
In Egyptian Goddess, the Federal Circuit discouraged the interpretation of a design patent
through a detailed verbal description of the patented design. 543 F.3d at 679. This is because,
unlike utility patents, design patents are typically claimed only as drawings. However, where, as
in this case, a patented design has elements that are dictated by function, it is permissible to
identify verbally the ornamental features of the design. OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,
122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Where a design contains both functional and non-
functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-
functional aspects of the design as shown in the patent.)
12

21934/043/1401891.1
2. KK Infringes Under The Ordinary Observer Test
In the eyes of the ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, the accused KK lighters
use a design that is substantially similar to the patented design. Making a visual comparison
between the patented design and the accused design, with the emphasis on the overall effect of
the two designs, and not on individual elements of the designs, the overall impression is
undeniably substantially similar, especially when viewed in light of the prior art Zippo design.
Zippo Lighter Harel Design

Accused KK Lighter Insert Accused KK Lighter

KK uses a design that is aesthetically the same as the Harel design with a virtually
identical unified profile making the overall appearance substantially similar in the eyes of an
ordinary observer. An ordinary observer would not focus on any minor differences such as the

21934/043/1401891.1
circular indentions on the ignition tower of the KK lighter as the making
distinguishable from the Harel design, because the lighter profile is the dominant visual design
element of the lighter. MacGregor Decl. Ex.
the Robertson report, from a design perspective, particularly when viewed in the context of the
prior art, the Harel design is distinct, with a uni
stand out in the crowd. The KK lighter appea
with the same dominant angled lines, proportional height and width of the ignition tower, button
and the rectangular enclosed casing for the lever pivot.
forms that are united to create the signature of the
distinctive profile.

6
Russell Robertson is an experien
Professor of Industrial Design at the Pratt Institute. Expert testimony on the issues of
infringement and validity in design patent cases is regularly admitted and relied upon by courts.
See, e.g., Gorham, 81 U.S. at 530;
13
circular indentions on the ignition tower of the KK lighter as the making the overall design
MacGregor Decl. Ex. F, Robertson expert report,
6
61-
rom a design perspective, particularly when viewed in the context of the
prior art, the Harel design is distinct, with a unique identity that was intentionally created to
The KK lighter appears to be a virtual copy of the 274 patents design
lar enclosed casing for the lever pivot. As illustrated below, these are the main
to create the signature of the 274 patents modern design aesthetic and
Russell Robertson is an experienced independent industrial designer and Adjunct
1 U.S. at 530; Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 681-82.
the overall design
-67. As noted in
rom a design perspective, particularly when viewed in the context of the
que identity that was intentionally created to
274 patents design
hese are the main
nts modern design aesthetic and

ced independent industrial designer and Adjunct
14

21934/043/1401891.1

When held in the hand during use, it is the top of the lighter that is readily identifiable. It
is the upper profile of the lighter that is the dominant visual element both in use and at the point
of sale. The profile of the KK lighter would be essentially indistinguishable from that of the
Harel design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. See MacGregor Decl., Ex. F, Robertson expert
report, 69.
C. KK Cannot Overcome The Presumption Of Patent Validity
A design patent is presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C. 282. Thus, KK bears the burden of
establishing invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland,
Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
KK contends in its Invalidity Contentions (McGregor Decl. Ex. D) that the 274 patent is
invalid on the grounds that (1) the patented design would have been obvious to a designer of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
7
and (2) the overall design of the 274
patent is dictated by the function and required use for insertion into a Zippo pocket lighter
case, that the design of the fuel port, (aka refill valve) on the bottom of the lighter and the
flame port (aka burner) on the top of the lighter are dictated by their respective functions of
enabling the refilling of the lighter with lighter fuel and the burning of the fuel, and the integral
extensions or lugs (aka casing for the lever) are dictated by the function of using the patented
design for a lighter insert to be inserted in a Zippo brand case.
1. KKs Obviousness Argument Is Insufficient As A Matter Of Law
There is no support for KKs obviousness argument. Utility patents are directed to useful
inventions, whereas design patents are directed to ornamental (non-functional) designs. See 35

7
For the purposes of this motion, Plaintiffs concede that the filing date of the patent
application is the constructive date of invention.
15

21934/043/1401891.1
U.S.C. 171; Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1238 (Fed. Cir.
2009). A design patent, like a utility patent, must satisfy 35 U.S.C. 103. The version of 103
which applies to the patents in suit
8
provides in relevant part that a patent may not be obtained
if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains.
In addressing a claim of obviousness with respect to a design patent, the ultimate
inquiry is whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill
who designs articles of the type involved. Apple, 678 F.3d at 1329 (citations and quotation
marks omitted).
The obviousness inquiry with respect to a design patent is different from the analysis for
utility patents. For a design patent the obviousness analysis must be based on a primary prior
art reference, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the patented
design. If such a primary prior art reference is identified, secondary references may be combined
with the primary prior art reference only if such a combination would have been obvious to a
designer of ordinary skill. Id. at 1329 (First, one must find a single reference, a something in
existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.
Second, other references may be used to modify [the primary reference] to create a design that
has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design if they are so related to the
primary reference that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the
application of those features to the other. (Citations and quotation marks omitted).

8
The Patent Act, including 103, was substantially amended by the America Invents Act
(AIA). However, the AIA 103 amendments apply only to patents filed on or after March 16,
2013.
16

21934/043/1401891.1
The analysis of whether a prior art reference qualifies as a primary reference requires
the following two steps: (1) discerning the visual impression created by the patented design as a
whole; and (2) analyzing whether the alleged primary reference creates basically the same
visual impression. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
An illustration of how to analyze whether a prior art reference qualifies as a primary
prior art reference is found in the Apple case, where the court held that the prior art Fidler
reference did not qualify as a primary reference with respect to Apples D504,889 design patent
(D889 patent) because the Fidler tablet did not give the same visual impression as the patented
design. The Fidler tablet design alongside Apples patented design, as depicted in the courts
opinion, is shown below.

In evaluating whether a design qualifies as a primary reference it is erroneous to view the
respective designs from too high a level of abstraction. The Court of Appeals in the Apple case
explained that the Fidler reference did not qualify as a primary reference simply by disclosing a
rectangular tablet with four evenly rounded corners and a flat back. In other words, it was not
sufficient that Fidler disclosed the general concept of a tablet; the focus in determining
17

21934/043/1401891.1
whether a prior art reference qualifies as a primary reference must be on the distinctive visual
appearances of the reference and the claimed design. Apple, 678 F.3d at 1331-1332.
Here KK has not specifically identified any primary reference for use in the obviousness
analysis. KKs obviousness argument as set forth in its Invalidity Contentions appears to use the
Zippo brand lighter depicted on page 4 of its Invalidity Contentions or U.S. Patent No.
2,406,071, (071 patent), U.S. Patent No. 2,517,191 (191 patent) or U.S. Patent No.
6,247,920 (920 patent) as a primary reference on which to base its obviousness contention.
However, applying the Federal Circuits instruction to evaluate the alleged primary reference by
focusing on the distinctive visual appearance of the reference and the patented design, none of
these references qualify as a primary reference because none of these designs are basically the
same as the patented design for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Robertson expert
report,

(MacGregor Decl. Ex. F), 21-40.
As explained in the Robertson report, 27, the visual impression that is created by the
lighter design of 274 patent as a whole is aesthetically modern through its simplified and unified
appearance of the following major design elements:
a. The specific, intentionally designed, angle of the button, which is nested tightly
next to the ignition tower (aka flame protector tower). The angle and location
of the button helps to create a clean and modern profile that is easily identifiable
in various views.
b. The profile of the ignition tower is defined by clean lines that indicate precision,
(unlike the identity of the Zippo brand lighter depicted below, which has a
handcrafted appearance and soft edges). The relationship of the angled button to
the ignition tower directs the eye to the flame.

21934/043/1401891.1
c. The enclosed casing for housing the lever for the lid of the lighter case is
designed to hide the levers
adds to the unified appearance of the components at the top of the lighter and
contributes to the unique and easily identifiable profile of the top portion of the
lighter.
As noted in the Robertson report
the patented design can be easily viewed and identified as unique in a profile or
In contrast, the visual impression of the Zippo
retro. The Zippo lighter is depicted below:

The Zippo lighter design
typical of what was deemed an appropriate aesthetic for the consumer of the time period in
which the Zippo lighter was designed (circa 1946
defining the form, without ornamentation. Thi
low cost tooling of the time. See Robertson report, 29.
intentionally showcases modern manufacturing
contemporary product with clean, hard edges and a unified housing for the functional
18
The enclosed casing for housing the lever for the lid of the lighter case is
designed to hide the levers pivot. The rectangular shape of the lever casing
As noted in the Robertson report 27, the combination of these three design elements
can be easily viewed and identified as unique in a profile or from
visual impression of the Zippo lighter is that it is vintage, handcrafted
The Zippo lighter is depicted below:
design is much more rounded on the corners. The Zippo lighter is
which the Zippo lighter was designed (circa 1946 -1950), with the essential parts of the product
defining the form, without ornamentation. This soft approach to form could be achieved with the
See Robertson report, 29. The Harel design, on the other hand,
modern manufacturing precision and is easily identified as
clean, hard edges and a unified housing for the functional
The enclosed casing for housing the lever for the lid of the lighter case is
pivot. The rectangular shape of the lever casing
design elements in
from any view.
crafted and
The Zippo lighter is
1950), with the essential parts of the product
s soft approach to form could be achieved with the
, on the other hand,
is easily identified as a
clean, hard edges and a unified housing for the functional
19

21934/043/1401891.1
components. It could have been designed with soft edges and without ornamentation, like the
Zippo lighter, but it was not.
In short, the Harel design has a distinctive, upscale aesthetic, which appeals to the
sensibilities of the modern consumer with its unified design elements. The Zippo lighter
separated the individual elements of its design to communicate a more utilitarian look. Unlike
the heritage of the Zippo lighter, which evokes the hardworking, 1940s and 50s consumer
culture, the Harel design is contemporary, modern and sleek with sharply defined angled and
parallel lines in the visually dominant upper part of the lighter. Robertson report, 68.
As explained in the Robertson report, the lighter designs depicted in the 071 patent, 191
patent and 920 patent shown below are similar to the Zippo lighter design. These designs do
not qualify as basically the same design as the Harel design any more than the Zippo lighter
design does. See Robertson report, 31-36.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,406,071 U.S. Pat. No.6,247,920 U.S. Pat. No. 2,517,191

Since KK has not identified any prior art lighter design that is basically the same as the
patented Harel design, KK cannot carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence
that the 274 patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
20

21934/043/1401891.1
2. There Is No Support For KKs Functionality Argument
To qualify for a design patent, the patented design must be primarily ornamental. L.A.
Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123. In determining whether a design is primarily functional or primarily
ornamental the claimed design is viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is not the
functional or decorative aspect of each separate feature, but the overall appearance of the article,
in determining whether the claimed design is dictated by the utilitarian purpose of the article. Id.
When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the
design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose. Id. at 1123. When
the patented design contains both functional and ornamental aspects, the patent is entitled to a
scope of protection limited to the ornamental aspects of the design and does not extend to any
functional elements of the claimed article. To be deemed functional a design element must be
driven purely by utility. Richardson, 597 F.3d at 1294.
As set forth in the Robertson report, 45-50, the overall patented design is not dictated
by function but by design choices. The only elements of the patented design that are dictated by
function are the burner and refill valve shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the 274 patent, which are
functional elements of any lighter. As explained by Mr. Robertson, the other elements of the
patented design are purely dictated by aesthetic choices. It is these aesthetic design elements that
have been appropriated by KKs accused lighters.
Since KK cannot show that the overall design of the 274 patent is primarily functional,
KK cannot carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the 274 patent is
invalid as functional.
21

21934/043/1401891.1
3. KKs Invalidity Claim Under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 112 Should Be
Dismissed
As set forth under the Procedural History above, KKs Answer alleged patent invalidity
for failure to comply with the conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102 and 112 as
well as 103. However, KKs Invalidity Contentions alleged no arguments or grounds for
invalidity under 102 and 112. Accordingly, KK has abandoned its claim of patent invalidity
under 102 and 112. Summary judgment should be entered for Plaintiffs on KKs defense
and counterclaim as to failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. 102 and 112.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, summary judgment should be granted to Plaintiffs on their
claim for infringement of the 274 patent and KKs counterclaims for declarations of patent non-
infringement and invalidity should be dismissed.

Dated: June 12, 2013 Respectfully submitted
New York, NY
COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
By: /Meichelle R. MacGregor/
Meichelle R. MacGregor
Michael G. Gabriel
Catriona M. Collins
1133 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, NY
(212) 790-9200
EXHIBIT 4

limited liability company. )
)
Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants, )
)
v. ) 0:12-cv-61669 WPD-LSS
)
KGM INDUSTRIES CO., INC., a California )
corporation, J OHN DOES 1-10 and XYZ )
CORPORATIONS 1-10, )
)
Defendants-Counterclaimants )

EXPERT REPORT ON INVALIDITY
Professor Ronald B. Kemnitzer, FIDSA
May 24, 2012

REPORT OF RONALD B. KEMNITZER
INTRODUCTION
1. I am Ronald B. Kemnitzer. I reside at 2103 Grandin Rd., Roanoke, VA 24015.
I have been retained by the law firm of Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear on behalf of KGM
Industries, Co., Inc. in the suit brought by Yigal Cohen Harel, an individual, and Integral
Logistics, LLC. I have been asked to testify on the subjects of invalidity and non-infringement of
United States Patents Nos. D498,328 (the 328 Patent), and D501,274 (the 274 Patent)
(collectively, the patents-in-suit).
BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
2. I am an industrial designer. The Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA)
defines the profession as: Industrial design is the professional service of creating and
developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of
- 2 -
products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer (Exhibit 1).
3. I have been a practicing industrial designer for over forty years and I have a
Bachelors and a Masters Degree in Industrial Design. I have received eighteen design and
utility patents (Exhibit 2). I have served as a staff industrial designer for corporations such as
Black & Decker Manufacturing Company and Sunbeam Appliance Company and for several
design consulting offices. I owned and operated my own design consulting office for eighteen
years before turning it over to my son in 2003. My consulting office had a variety of clients
representing a wide range of product categories and industries. Clients included: Rival Appliance
Company, Sunbeam Appliance Company, Ambassador Cards, B&E Aerospace, Cramer Sports
Products, Fixtures Furniture Company, Select Brands Appliances, Lee Apparel Company,
Bushnell Sports Optics, Medi-Flex Hospital Products, Hallmark Cards, Paoli Furniture
Company, Virco Manufacturing Company, Sprint PCS, World2Toys, and others. My work as an
industrial designer requires me to provide ornamental designs for manufactured products that are
useful and have functions in every day life such as consumer products, sports equipment,
medical products, and commercial furniture. During my career as a practicing industrial
designer, I designed and supervised the design of many (150+) products. I have designed a
variety of products as an industrial designer, from sports optics products, to kitchen appliances,
to office system furniture, to large case pharmaceutical products and more. I offer these
examples in order to demonstrate that industrial designers, including myself, are regularly called
on to design products with which they are not previously familiar, and we do so quite
successfully because of our academic preparation. As a practicing industrial designer and an
educator, I have a well-developed ability to discern and describe aesthetic details that is an
invaluable aid to the trier of fact in determining whether two products are substantially similar
visually.
4. I have also served as a full-time industrial design educator for over thirty-five
years. I have held tenured positions at Michigan State University, the Kansas City Art Institute,
the University of Kansas, and currently serve as Professor in the Industrial Design Program at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. I have taught approximately 700 students
who now occupy industrial design positions in consulting offices and in nearly every industry
and market segment. I was named one of 25 educators in the United States by the Design and
Future council of Design Intelligence as the most admired and respected in the fields of interior
- 3 -
design, interior architecture, architecture design, architectural engineering, industrial design, and
landscape architecture in 2008, 2009, and 2011.
5. As a practicing industrial designer, it is my standard procedure to thoroughly
examine all design patents and other forms of prior art that might relate to the product that I am
designing. By understanding the visual embodiments of products that are protected, I can avoid
any potential conflict, as there are virtually unlimited visual options to any ornamental design. I
also teach my students the legal importance and ethical foundation for implementing such
procedures as common practice.
6. I have served as President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA). I was elected to the IDSA Academy of Fellows,
a prestigious honor reserved for those who have earned the special respect and affection of the
membership through distinguished service to the Society and to the profession as a whole. A
complete list of my honors, awards, articles and speaking engagements appears in my
Curriculum Vitae (Exhibit A).
7. Based on my background and experience in industrial design, I believe that I am
qualified to testify as one skilled in the art with respect to the ornamental designs of lighters. In
this litigation, one skilled in the art would be a designer having a year or more experience
designing consumer products.
8. Additional details of my education, training, experience, publications, patents,
and awards and honors are disclosed in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit A.
INFORMATION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
9. A list of the information and materials that I considered in forming my opinions
is attached as Exhibit B.

COMPENSATION
10. My compensation in this matter is at the rate of $250 per hour for deposition and
trial testimony, and is not dependent on the outcome of this litigation.

- 4 -
OPINIONS REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE 328 and 274 PATENTS

A. Background of Patent Law
11. It is my understanding that patents are presumed to be valid. Further, it is my
understanding that a patent is invalid if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence to be
indefinite, nonenabling, anticipated, or obvious.

1. Design Patent Law
12. It is my understanding that new, original and ornamental designs for articles of
manufacture are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 171. I further understand that design patents are
subject to the same requirements of patentability as utility patentse.g. 35 U.S.C. 102, 103,
and 112. See 35 U.S.C. 171. I further understand that the claimed design is shown in solid
lines, whereas broken or dotted lines in a design patent are not part of the claimed design. See In
re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 906 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ([B]roken or dotted line showing in design
drawings is an immaterial part of the design as to specific shape or configuration. It only
indicates the general article with which the dominant features of the design shown in full lines
are associated.). I also understand that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
permits, but does not require, the use of surface shading to clearly show the character and
contour of all surfaces of any 3-dimensional aspect[s] of the design. MPEP 1503.02 (Form
Paragraph 15.48(II), entitled Surface Shading) (8
th
ed. Rev. 8, J uly 2010). I further understand
that surface shading should not be used on unclaimed subject matter, shown in broken lines, to
avoid confusion as to the scope of the claim. Id. Thus, I understand that surface shading is
used to demonstrate the character or contour of a surface which is part of the claimed design.
See also 37 C.F.R. 1.152 (Appropriate and adequate surface shading should be used to show the
character or contour of the surfaces represented.) (emphasis added).

2. Claim Construction for Design Patents
13. It is my understanding that claim construction for design patents is within the
discretion of the Court. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir.
2008) ([A] district court's decision regarding the level of detail to be used in describing the
- 5 -
claimed design is a matter within the court's discretion . . . . At the same time, it should be clear
that the court is not obligated to issue a detailed verbal description of the design if it does not
regard verbal elaboration as necessary or helpful.). I further understand that the prior art is
important in defining the claimed subject matter. Id. at 680 ([A] court may find it helpful to
point out . . . various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the
prior art.). More particularly, I understand that where the claimed design is close to the prior
art, small differences are likely to become more important. Id. at 676. I also understand that
primarily functional design elements are not part of the claimed subject matter of design
patents, and that claim construction should identify the nonfunctional aspects of a design
containing both functional and nonfunctional elements. Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597
F.3d 1288, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

3. The Ordinary Observer Test
14. It is my understanding that determining whether two designs are substantially the
same requires use of the ordinary observer test. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670. I further
understand that two designs are substantially similar under the ordinary observer test if, in the
eye of an ordinary observer who is giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the
resemblance is such as to deceive the ordinary observer to purchase an article having one design
supposing it to be the other. Id. I also understand that this hypothetical ordinary observer is
deemed to be conversant in the prior art when viewing differences between two designs. Id. at
676 ([T]he ordinary observer is deemed to view the differences between the patented design and
the accused product in the context of the prior art.). Finally, I understand that such an ordinary
observer, conversant in the prior art, would be drawn to those aspects of the claimed design that
differ from the prior art. Id.
15. It is my understanding that courts routinely consider expert testimony in design
patent cases. See Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 530 (1871); Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at
681-82; Avia Group Intl, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1565 (Fed. Cir.
1988). Moreover, it is my understanding that the courts have found expert testimony to be useful
and relevant in analyzing design patent infringement under the ordinary observer test. See
Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-00033, slip op. at 19
(M.D. Fla. J an. 4, 2013). I have been trained to focus on the visual impression that a product
- 6 -
creates on an ordinary observer and thus, I am qualified to opine on the perspective of an
ordinary observer in the context of design patent infringement. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung
Elecs., Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-01886-LHK, 2012 WL 2571332, at *2 (N.D. Cal. J une 30, 2012)
(holding that defendants experts are qualified to opine on the perspective of an ordinary
observer under FRE 702 based on experience as a manager overseeing product development and
in designing products targeted at ordinary observers.)

4. Non-Infringement
16. It is my understanding that a determination of design patent infringement
involves a two step analysis: first the claim must be properly construed to determine its meaning
and scope, and second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused design
to determine whether there has been infringement. Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d
1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995). I understand that the first step requires that the scope of the claim
must be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design as shown in the
patent when the design contains both functional and non-functional elements. Egyptian
Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 680 (quoting Oddzon Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396,
1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, I understand that an aspect is functional if it is essential to the
use of purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article. Inwood Labs., Inc.
v. Ives Labs Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851, FN 10 (1982). It is also my understanding that, in the
second step, the pertinent question is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art
designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented
design. Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Egyptian Goddess, 543
F.3d at 681.)

5. Indefiniteness and Nonenablement
17. It is my understanding that a patents specification must set forth the claimed
invention in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable persons having ordinary skill in
the art to make and use the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 112, 1. I further understand that the
patents specification must conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the claimed invention. Id., 2. I also understand that expert testimony is
necessary to establish an indefiniteness or nonenablement defense under 35 U.S.C. 112. See
- 7 -
Australia Vision Servs. Pty. Ltd. v. Dioptics Med. Prods., Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1159 (C.D.
Cal. 1998); Hadco Prods., Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of Am., Inc., 312 F. Supp. 1173, 1181 (E.D. Pa.
1970), revd on other grounds, 462 F.2s 1265 (3d Cir. 1972).
18. With regards to design patents, it is my understanding that the drawings
comprise the entire visual disclosure of the claim and that it is of the utmost importance that
the drawing[s] . . . be clear and complete. MPEP 1503.02. I further understand that nothing
regarding the design should be left to conjecture. Id. It is my understanding that a claimed
design should be rejected as nonenabling and indefinite where the inconsistencies [between
drawings] are of such magnitude that the overall appearance of the design is unclear. Id.; see
also Seed Lighting Design Co. v. Home Depot, No. C 04-2291 SBA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
44741, at *24-28 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2005) (citing to MPEP 1503.02 and finding a design patent
to be indefinite under 112 due to mistakes and ambiguities in the drawings which made the
precise scope of the patent unclear).
6. Anticipation
19. It is my understanding that an invention is anticipated if it is not novele.g.
where a single prior art reference discloses the claimed design. 35 U.S.C. 102(a). I further
understand that a design patent is anticipated where a single prior art reference is identical in all
material respects to the claimed invention. Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc., 256 F.3d
1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is my understanding that the claimed invention must read on that
which is disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds by Sri Intl v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107,
1125 (Fed. Cir. 1985). I further understand that whether a design patent is anticipated is
determined by comparing the claimed design to the prior art using the ordinary observer test.
Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1239-40 (Fed. Cir. 2009). I also
understand that minor differences between the claimed design and the allegedly anticipating
article do not prevent anticipation so long as the two designs are substantially similar. See Door-
Master, 256 F.3d at 1312-13; see also Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670. Finally, I understand
that two designs are substantially similar under the ordinary observer test if, in the eye of an
ordinary observer who is giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, the resemblance is
such as to deceive the ordinary observer to purchase an article having one design supposing it to
be the other. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670.
- 8 -
7. Obviousness
20. It is my understanding that a design is invalid due to obviousness where the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter of the
claimed invention would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. 103(a). I further understand that the person having
ordinary skill in the art would determine whether to combine multiple prior art references.
Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted). I also understand that this process requires finding a single reference . . . basically the
same as the claimed design and then using secondary references to modify the primary
reference. Id.; see also In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ([A] primary
reference (basic design) must be cited having design characteristics which are basically the
same as the claimed design. The designs of other references may then properly be relied upon
for modification of such basic design when the references are so related that the appearance of
certain ornamental features in one . . . would have suggested application of those features to
another.) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
21. However, it is my understanding that obviousness cannot be based on selecting
features from the prior art and assembling them to form an article similar in appearance to the
claimed design. In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Rather, I understand that
the obviousness inquiry focuses on the visual impression of the claimed design as a whole and
not on selected individual features. Id.; see also Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456,
1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ([C]orrect application of this analytic approach is to ascertain whether . . .
the same or a substantially similar article of manufacture is known to have design characteristics
of which the design of the article as shown in the claim [viewed as a whole] is an obvious
variant.); Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (In the design
patent context, the ultimate inquiry under section 103 is whether the claimed design would have
been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved. More
specifically, the inquiry is whether one of ordinary skill would have combined teachings of the
prior art to create the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.) (citations omitted);
In re Harvey, 12 F.3d at 1063 (In ornamental design cases, a proper obviousness rejection based
on a combination of references requires that the visual ornamental features (design
characteristics) of the claimed design appear in the prior art in a manner which suggests such
- 9 -
features as used in the claimed design.); In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(holding that a design should not be rejected as obvious if the combined teachings suggest only
components of the claimed design but not its overall appearance and finding that a person
having ordinary skill in the art need not necessarily study the prior art in order to understand the
potential use of a symmetrical design).
22. I further understand that an obviousness inquiry need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim but rather may take
into account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ. KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S 398, 418 (2007). Indeed, I understand that
[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp and a claim is likely obvious [i]f this leads
to the anticipated success. Id. at 421.
23. Finally, I understand that this single, combined piece of art is to be constructed
by one having ordinary skill in the art and then the ordinary observer test is applied to determine
if the claimed design is substantially similar to the combined prior art references. Intl Seaway,
589 F.3d at 1240.

B. Opinions
24. Based upon my understanding of the pertinent law, it is my opinion that the 274
and 328 Patents are invalid due to anticipation, and/or obviousness. Specifically, it is my
opinion that (1) the 274 Patent is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness; (2) the 328 Patent
is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness.

1. Person Having Skill in the Art
25. In my opinion, in 2004 when the patents-in-suit were filed, a person of skill in
the art would have had the following characteristics: As lighters have a long and rich history, a
person of skill in the art would be familiar with the extensive prior art available. This person
would also be familiar with current visual trends in lighters, including the visual attributes of
competitive products, trends in colors and materials (stainless steel being the primary material of
- 10 -
the type of lighter represented by the patents-in-suit). A person of skill in the art would therefore
have a working knowledge of sheet metal forming and fabrication processes. A person of skill in
the art would have knowledge of the prior art and would be able to foresee obvious evolutions of
visual attributes of the product category.
26. While mechanical engineers would be likely to have a working knowledge of
sheet metal forming and fabrication processes, they would not likely be aware of trends in visual
styles as that is not a part of their education. On the other hand, all accredited industrial design
programs include a course(s) in materials and processes that would provide instruction in sheet
metal forming and fabrication well within the complexity of the product at issue. In addition,
industrial designers are educated to continuously observe and take note of consumer behaviors,
feature preferences, visual trends, and lifestyle changes. In summation, a person of skill in the
art would be familiar with the current visual trends in lighters, would have knowledge of the
prior art of the product at issue, would be able to foresee obvious evolutions of visual attributes
of the product category, and would have a working knowledge of sheet metal forming and
fabrication processes. All of these attributes are well represented in an industrial designer with
one year of experience in designing consumer products.

2. Ordinary Observer
27. In my opinion, the ordinary observer of the patents-in-suit would be an end-user
purchaser of lighters. Such a person would be aware of current models and would also recognize
that the types of lighters at issue in this matter are very similarly proportioned and sized so as to
be compatible with Zippopocket lighters which are well known for the interchangeability of
outer cases and inserts. Because of these similarities, the ordinary observer would be drawn to
differences of visual details between lighters more than they might otherwise be for purchases of
other consumer products.

3. Cited Prior Art
28. In the prosecution of the 328 Patent and the 274 Patent applications, the
examiner cited only three design patents in the approval of the applications, none of which were
offered by the applicant. No additional prior art references were cited. Figures of the cited
patents are reproduced below.
- 11 -
US D188,507

D188,507 is cited by US D501,274

- 12 -
US D320,467

D320,467 is cited by US D498,398 and US D501,274
FIG .I
FIG.2 FIG .3
FIG.4 FIG.5
I .
+
. I
- 13 -
US D339,209

D339,209 is cited by US D498,398 and US D501,274
FIG. 1 FIG.2
FIG.3 FIG.4 FIG.S
IJ
'I
F I G.6
,IJ, .
-
FIG.7
- 14 -

29. In my opinion, when the patents-in-suit were filed on Feb. 24, 2004, there were
many existing designs for lighters that should have been considered in their prosecution. Without
an appropriately representative body of visual references, the prosecution of a design patent is
likely to be flawed. As will be detailed later in this declaration, there is a large body of relevant
prior art that was not considered in this prosecution. As explained in more detail in my opinions
that follow, there were a number of examples of prior art that disclosed the design elements used
in the patents-in-suit.

4. Limited Search
30. The very small number of design patents cited in the prosecution of the 328
Patent and the 274 Patent begs the question as to whether the categories searched were too
narrowly defined or that non-patented prior art was considered. The Supreme Court cautioned
against such practice in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007). The Supreme Court stated that the Federal Circuit had erred by holding that courts
and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve (Id. at
420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397) and by assuming that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem Id. It
is my opinion that in the application and prosecution of the 328 Patent and the 274 Patent, the
consideration of relevant prior art was too narrowly defined.

5. Un-Cited Prior Art
31. In 2004 when the 328 Patent and the 274 Patent applications were filed, there
were many existing examples of lighters of the type exemplified in the Patents-in-suit. Following
is a selected sampling of the un-cited prior art I have reviewed. A complete listing of the prior art
that I have examined is included in Exhibit B.

- 15 -
Selected Sampling of Un-Cited Prior Art
ZippoLighter US Patent 2,032,695 US Patent 2,517,191 US Patent 3,247,688

US Patent 5,359,505

US Patent 5,738,117

US Patent 6,247,920
US
Patent D397,497
US Patent 2,406,071
Patent D320467
Vector Thunderbird 1

Vector Thunderbird 2
Vector Titanic

Vector X-Sonic
Hague International

Reg. DM/056740
Korean
Registration

1995-0005453
- 16 -
6. Claim Construction of the 328 Patent
32. The 328 Patent is titled LIGHTER and it claims The ornamental design for
the lighter, as shown and described. The 328 Patent lists one inventor. The 328 Patent was
filed on Feb. 24, 2004 and was issued on Nov. 9, 2004. The 328 Patent contains seven drawing
figures, the traditional elevation views plus a perspective view. The Figures and the
accompanying descriptions are shown below.
FIG. 1 is a top, front, and right side view of the lighter.

FIG. 2 is a top, plan view of the embodiment of FIG. 1.

FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view of the embodiment of FIG. 1.
- 17 -

FIG. 4 is front elevation view of the embodiment of FIG. 1.

FIG. 5 is a left side view of the embodiment of FIG. 1.

FIG. 6 is a back elevation view of the embodiment of FIG. 1.
- 18 -


7. Aspects of the 328 Patent Mandated by Function
regard verbal elaboration as necessary or helpful). I further understand that the prior art is
important in defining the claimed subject matter. Id. at 680 ([A] court may find it helpful to
point out . . . various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the
prior art). More particularly, I understand that where the claimed design is close to the prior art,
small differences are likely to become more important. Id. at 676. I also understand that
primarily functional design elements are not part of the claimed subject matter of design
patents, and that claim construction should identify and factor out the nonfunctional aspects of a
design containing both functional and nonfunctional elements. Richardson v. Stanley Works,
Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
- 19 -
U.S. Patent No. 2,032,695 Fig. 1
34. U.S. Patent No. 2,032,695 was issued on May 17, 1934. Fig. 1 of this patent is
illustrated above. The commercial embodiment of this patent was the world-famous Zippo
lighter. Among its many unique functional attributes was a two-part outer case of distinctive size
and shape (2 and 18 in Fig. 1). It also featured two telescopically disposed hollow members,
the inner member 1 being substantially coextensive with the outer member 2 and having a very
snug sliding fit therewith. The feature to keep the cover 18 closed, a lever 21 was pivotally
mounted at one end between a pair of lugs 8 so that it can be swung from an upright position, as
shown in Fig. 4, to a substantially horizontal position, as shown in Fig.2, and vice versa. It also
featured a generally elliptical wind screen 4 in which a plurality of draft openings 6 are
pinched.
35. The Zippolighter has a long and storied history and has been a prized object of
collectors. So popular is this lighter, that many manufacturers have produced insert products
that slide into original Zippocases, replacing the original lighting mechanism. The commercial
embodiments of the Accused Patents are such products. Accordingly the dimension and shape of
these products are dictated by the shape and dimensions of the Zippocase so that they have a
very snug sliding fit therewith. These insert products must also include the lugs (8 in Fig. 1)
and lever (21 in Fig. 1) for the assembly of insert and two-part outer case to function. Therefore,
per Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2010), these primarily
functional design elements can not be part of the claimed subject matter of design patents, and
claim construction should identify and factor out these nonfunctional aspects of a design
- 20 -
containing both functional and nonfunctional elements. Accordingly, I have modified the Figures
of the 328 Patent to exclude the primarily functional aspects of the claim. Illustrated below,
the primarily functional aspects are indicated by red.

FIG.5
FIG.3
FIG.4
FIG.l
FIG.2
- 21 -

36. The rectangular base of the lighter that is sized to fit into a Zippolighter case is
primarily functional and is indicated in red in Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The hinge posts
(protruding vertically from the lighter base) to which the lighter cover is attached are also
primarily functional and are indicated in red in Figures 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. The keyhole shaped
igniter (located on the top surface of the windscreen is also primarily functional and is
common to all lighters of this genre. It is indicated in red in Figures 1 and 2.

8. Analysis of Anticipation of the D498,328 Patent
37. As stated earlier in this declaration, the ordinary observer of the patents-in-suit
would be an end-user purchaser of lighters. Such a person would be aware of current models and
would recognize that the types of lighters at issue in this matter are very similarly proportioned
and sized so as to be compatible with Zippopocket lighters which are well known for the
interchangeability of outer cases and inserts. Because of these similarities, the ordinary observer
would be drawn to differences of visual details between lighters more than they might otherwise
be for purchases of other consumer products.
38. The Vector Titanic lighter, widely distributed for at least five years before the
application for the 328 Patent was submitted, has as its primary visual attributes; a generally
rectangular shaped windscreen, decorated with a series of indented vertical lines that visually
reference the perforations that were once required in wicked lighters, and a generally rectangular
shaped ignition button with a top surface that is parallel to the top surface of the windscreen. The
windscreen is taller than the adjacent generally rectangular shaped ignition button. A visual
comparison of the 328 Patent and the Vector Titanic lighter is illustrated below.
- 22 -

D328 Patent Fig. 1 Vector Titanic

39. There are only a few very minor visual differences between the Vector Titanic
lighter and Fig. 1 of the 328 Patent. The Vector Titanic lighter has vertical line indentions on the
side surfaces of the windscreen while the 328 Patent has indented lines in the top surface of the
ignition button. The corner edges of the generally rectangular shaped windscreen of the Vector
Titanic lighter curve slightly outward at the lower portion of the windscreen. The ignition button
of the 328 Patent is lower relative to the height of the windscreen than is the Vector Titanic
lighter. These minor visual differences merely prevent the 328 Patent from being an exact copy
of the Vector Titanic lighter.
40. A person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to
have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. To the extent that the 328 Patent and
the Vector Titanic lighter both share a generally rectangular shaped windscreen, taller than the
adjacent generally rectangular shaped ignition button, decorated with a series of indented vertical
lines that visually reference the perforations that were once required in wicked lighters, and with
all visual features nearly proportionately identical, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized the 328 Patent as anticipated by the Vector Titanic lighter.
41. An ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art, would find the 328 Patent to
be substantially similar to the Vector Titanic lighter because their resemblance is such that the
ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives to lighters of this genre,
- 23 -
would be deceived into purchasing the product shown in the 328 Patent supposing it to be the
Vector Titanic lighter. Thus, to the extent that the 328 Patent exhibits the same visual attributes
as the Vector Titanic lighter, that design is anticipated.
42. For the above stated reasons, I believe that the 328 Patent is anticipated under
35 U.S.C. 102.
43. Notwithstanding the strong case made above for the invalidation of the 328
Patent because it was anticipated by the Victor Titanic lighter, the following arguments for
invalidation of the 328 Patent due to obviousness are also offered.

9. 1st Analysis of Obviousness of the D498,328 Patent.
44. Among the cited prior art for the 328 Patent was the 209 Patent. While this
patent apparently did not anticipate the 328 Patent in the analysis of the examiner, it is my
opinion that this citation is visually similar enough to the 328 Patent that it qualifies as a
primary reference in a test of Obviousness. The only difference between the two is that the
windscreen on the 209 Patent is shorter than the windscreen of the 328 Patent and the igniter
button on the 209 Patent has a rounded vertical surface opposite the windscreen. As a secondary
reference, the Titanic lighter (commercially available at least as early as 1999, at least five years
before the application date of the 328 Patent), teaches a taller windscreen and an igniter button
which has a flat vertical surface opposite the windscreen. When combined, the primary and
secondary references would so closely resemble the 328 Patent that Obviousness is apparent.
- 24 -

D498,328 D498,209 Vector Titanic
Fig. 1 of the 328 Patent 209 Patent Vector Titanic

45. It is clear that by modifying the 209 Patent with features taught by the Vector
Titanic lighter that the resulting design would be visually identical to the 328 Patent.
the Vector Titanic lighter both share a generally rectangular shaped windscreen, taller than the
adjacent generally rectangular shaped ignition button, decorated with a series of indented vertical
lines that visually reference the perforations that were once required in wicked lighters, and with
all visual features proportionately similar, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the obvious opportunity to modify the 328 Patent referencing the teachings of the
Vector Titanic lighter.
47. An ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art, would find the 209 Patent
modified with the teachings of the Vector Titanic lighter to be substantially similar to the 328
Patent because their resemblance to each other would be such that the ordinary observer, giving
such attention as a purchaser usually gives to lighters of this genre, would be deceived into
- 25 -
purchasing the product shown in the 328 Patent supposing it to be the 209 Patent modified with
the teachings of the Vector Titanic lighter.
48. For the above stated reasons, I believe that the 328 Patent is obvious under 35
U.S.C. 102.

10. 2
nd
Analysis of Obviousness of the D498,328 Patent
49. To the extent that the combination of the 209 Patent and the Vector Titanic
lighter are deemed insufficient on their own to find the 328 Patent obvious, the following
analysis is offered.
50. Among the un-cited prior art for the 328 Patent was the Vector X-Sonic lighter,
commercially distributed in 2001, three years before the filing of the 328 Patent. While this
product was not considered in the prosecution of the 328 Patent, it is my opinion that this
citation is visually similar enough to the 328 Patent that it qualifies as a primary reference in a
test of obviousness. Both share generally rectangular windscreens that are taller than the adjacent
and generally rectangular igniter buttons. The only differences between the two is that the igniter
button on the Vector X-Sonic lighter is slanted down and away from the windscreen and the
wind screen on Vector X-Sonic lighter includes indented vertical lines on the windscreen and
indented horizontal lines on the sides of the igniter button. The 209 Patent is substantially
similar to the Vector X-Sonic lighter as they both share a generally rectangular shaped
windscreen that is taller than an adjacent generally rectangular igniter button. As a secondary
reference, the 209 Patent teaches no indented lines on the sides of the windscreen and indented
lines on the top surface of the igniter button, which is parallel to the top surface of the
windscreen. When combined, the primary and secondary references would so closely resemble
the 328 Patent that obviousness is apparent.

- 26 -
D498,328 Vector X-Sonic D498,209
328 Patent Fig. 1 Vector X-Sonic 209 Patent Fig. 1

51. It is clear that by modifying the features of the Vector X-Sonic lighter with
features taught by the 209 Patent that the resulting design would be visually identical to the 328
Patent.
have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. To the extent that the Vector X-Sonic
lighter and the 209 Patent both share both share generally rectangular windscreens that are taller
than the adjacent and generally rectangular igniter buttons, and with all visual features
proportionately similar, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obvious
opportunity to modify the Vector X-Sonic lighter referencing the teachings of the 209 Patent.
53. An ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art, would find the Vector X-Sonic
lighter modified with the teachings of the 209 Patent to be substantially similar to the 328
Patent because their resemblance would be such that the ordinary observer, giving such attention
as a purchaser usually gives to lighters of this genre, would be deceived into purchasing the
product shown in the 328 Patent supposing it to be the Vector X-Sonic lighter modified with the
teachings of the 209 Patent.
54. For the above stated reasons, I believe that the 328 Patent is obvious under 35
U.S.C. 102.

- 27 -
11. Analysis of Anticipation of the D501,274 Patent.
55. As stated earlier in this declaration, the ordinary observer of the Patents-in-suit
would be an end-user purchaser of lighters. Such a person would be aware of current models and
would recognize that the types of lighters at issue in this matter are very similarly proportioned
and sized so as to be compatible with Zippopocket lighters which are well known for the
interchangeability of outer cases and inserts. Because of these similarities, the ordinary observer
would be drawn to differences of visual details between lighters more than they might otherwise
be for purchases of other consumer products.
56. The Vector X-Sonic lighter, widely distributed for at least three years before the
application for the 328 Patent was submitted, has as its primary visual attributes; a generally
rectangular shaped windscreen, taller than the adjacent ignition button and decorated with a
series of indented vertical lines that visually reference the perforations that were once required in
wicked lighters, and a generally rectangular shaped ignition button with a top surface that slants
downward and away from the windscreen. A visual comparison of Figures 1 of the 274 Patent
and the Vector X-Sonic lighter is illustrated below.

274 Patent Fig. 1 Vector X-Sonic

- 28 -
57. There are only a few very minor visual differences between the Vector X-Sonic
lighter and Fig. 1 of the 274 Patent. The 274 Patent has more vertical line indentions in the
windscreen than does the Vector X-Sonic lighter. The Vector X-Sonic lighter has horizontal
indented lines on the side surfaces of the ignition button while the 274 has indented lines on the
top surface of the ignition button. Finally, the bottom edge of the Vector X-Sonic lighters
ignition button is parallel to the bottom of the lighter while the bottom edge of the 274 Patents
ignition button is angled. These minor visual differences merely prevent the 274 Patent from
being an exact copy of the Vector X-Sonic lighter.
the Vector X-Sonic lighter both share a generally rectangular shaped windscreen, taller than the
adjacent ignition button, decorated with a series of indented vertical lines that visually reference
the perforations that were once required in wicked lighters, and a generally rectangular shaped
ignition button with a top surface that slants downward and away from the windscreen, also
decorated with indented lines, and with all visual features nearly proportionately identical, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the 274 Patent as anticipated by the
Vector X-Sonic lighter.
59. An ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art, would find the 274 Patent to
be substantially similar to Vector X-Sonic lighter because their resemblance is such that the
ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives to lighters of this genre,
would be deceived into purchasing the product shown in the 274 Patent supposing it to be the
Vector X-Sonic lighter. Thus, to the extent that the 274 Patent exhibits the same visual
attributes as the Vector X-Sonic lighter, that design is anticipated.
60. For the above stated reasons, I believe that the 274 Patent is anticipated under
35 U.S.C. 102.
61. Notwithstanding the strong case made above for the invalidation of the 274
Patent because it was anticipated by the Vector X-Sonic lighter, the following arguments for
invalidation of the 274 Patent due to obviousness are also offered.

- 29 -
12. Analysis of Obviousness of the D501,274 Patent.
62. To the extent that the Vector X-Sonic lighter is deemed insufficient on its own to
anticipate the 274 Patent, a combination of prior art renders the 274 Patent obvious.
63. Among the un-cited prior art for the 274 Patent was the Vector X-Sonic lighter,
commercially distributed in 2001, three years before the filing of the 274 Patent. While this
product was not considered in the prosecution of the 274 Patent, it is my opinion that this
citation is visually similar enough to the 274 Patent that it qualifies as a primary reference in a
test of obviousness. Both share generally rectangular windscreens that are taller than the adjacent
and generally rectangular igniter buttons. Both have indented vertical lines on the sides of the
windscreen with the 274 Patent having lines of equal length and the Vector X-Sonic having
lines of unequal length. Both have igniter buttons that slope downward and away from the
windscreen. The only differences between the two igniter buttons is that the 274 Patent has
indented lines on the top of the igniter button and the Vector X-Sonic lighter has indented lines
on the sides of the igniter button. The Vector Titanic lighter is substantially similar to the Vector
X-Sonic lighter as they both share a generally rectangular shaped windscreen that is taller than
an adjacent generally rectangular igniter button. As a secondary reference, the Vector Titanic
lighter teaches indented lines on the sides of the windscreen, all of equal length. The 209 Patent
is substantially similar to the Vector X-Sonic lighter as they both share a generally rectangular
shaped windscreen that is taller than an adjacent generally rectangular igniter button. As a
secondary reference, the 209 Patent teaches no indented lines on the sides of the igniter button,
but with indented lines on the top of the igniter button. When combined, the primary and
secondary references would so closely resemble the 274 Patent that obviousness is apparent.

- 30 -
D510,274 Vector X-Sonic Vector Titanic D498,209

64. It is clear that by modifying the features of the Vector X-Sonic lighter with
features taught by the Vector Titanic lighter and the 209 Patent that the resulting design would
be visually identical to the 274 Patent.
have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. To the extent that the Vector X-Sonic
lighter and the Vector Titanic lighter and the 209 Patent all share generally rectangular
windscreens that are taller than the adjacent, generally rectangular igniter buttons, and with all
visual features proportionately similar, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the obvious opportunity to modify the Vector X-Sonic lighter referencing the
teachings of the Vector Titanic lighter and the 209 Patent.
66. An ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art, would find the Vector X-Sonic
lighter modified with the teachings of the Vector Titanic lighter and the 209 Patent to be
substantially similar to the 274 Patent because their resemblance to each other would be such
that the ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives to lighters of this
genre, would be deceived into purchasing the product shown in the 274 Patent supposing it to be
the Vector X-Sonic lighter modified with the teachings of the Vector Titanic lighter and 209
Patent.

274 Patent Fig. 1 Vector X-Sonic Vector Titanic 209 Patent
- 31 -
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the D498,328 and D501,274 Patents are invalid pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and/or 112.
1. Origins of the Accused Product
1. Before examining the issue of non-infringement in this case, it would be
instructive to understand the origins of the Accused Product as those origins make a very
compelling argument that the design of the product was a result of a purposeful process of the
manufacturer combining a primary reference with a secondary reference which resulted in the
Accused Product. What is especially compelling about this example is that both the primary and
secondary references were products in KGMs existing family of commercially distributed
products, both of which pre-dated the patents-in-suit in this case.
Thunderbird 1

2. Illustrated above is the Vector Thunderbird 1 lighter which was commercially
distributed at least as early as 2001. This lighter is fueled by readily available lighter fluid which
saturates a fabric wick within the windscreen and is ignited by rotating the flint wheel, which
creates a spark. The windscreen of this genre of lighters must be perforated to permit the flow of
air to the combustion area, but restrictive enough to prevent wind from extinguishing the flame.
The visual pattern of these holes is a distinctive visual element of these lighters and represents a
valuable corporate asset in terms of product branding. While this product was very successful in
- 32 -
the marketplace, the manufacturer was aware of the increasing popularity of butane-fueled
lighters and decided to create a version of this lighter to accommodate this fuel source.
Vector Thunderbird 1 Vector X-Sonic Accused Product

3. To create a new butane-fueled version of the Thunderbird 1 lighter, it was
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to use the Thunderbird 1 as the primary reference.
The windscreen shape was retained as the enclosure for the butane igniter which was inserted
into the top surface. As the perforations in the windscreen were no longer functionally necessary,
they could have been eliminated, but the design of the perforations was added as a recessed, but
closed, visual pattern that visually connects it to its sister lighter, the lighter fluid fueled
Thunderbird 1.
4. The flint wheel igniter of the Thunderbird 1 had to be replaced with a pezio-
electric igniter, required for a butane fuel source. For this element of the new design, the
designers turned to the teachings of the secondary reference, the Vector X-Sonic lighter, a
butane-fueled lighter produced and distributed by the same manufacturer since at least 2001. The
X-Sonic has a generally rectangular footprint, sits adjacent to the windscreen, rises vertically to
approximately 2/3rds of the overall height of the windscreen, and has a curved top surface that
slopes down and away from the windscreen. The X-Sonic teaches horizontal decorative lines
around the sides of the igniter button. This detail inspired the raised vertical lines on the igniter
button of the Accused Product.
5. The design of the Accused Product is clearly the result of purposefully
combining the visual features of a primary and secondary reference, both of which were in the
- 33 -
manufacturers product line at least as early as 2001, three years prior to the application
submission of the 328 and 274 Patents.

OPINIONS REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE 328 and 274 PATENTS
2. Analysis of Non-infringement of the D498,328 Patent.
6. To the extent that the previous arguments for anticipation and obviousness are
deemed insufficient on their own to find the 328 and 274 Patents invalid, the following
arguments for non-infringement are offered.
7. Based upon my understanding of the pertinent law, it is my opinion that the
Accused Product does not infringe US Patent D498,328. Specifically, it is my opinion that the
Accused Product is no more similar to the 328 Patent than the Vector Titanic lighter, uncited
prior art which was readily available and in commercial distribution prior to the application filing
of the 328 Patent.
D498,328 Vector Titanic Accused Product
______________________________________________________________________________
328 Patent Fig. 1 Vector Titanic Accused Product
- 34 -

8. When viewed side-by-side, equivalent views of the 328 Patent, the Vector
Titanic and the Accused Product, depict that each has a generally rectangular windscreen and an
adjacent generally rectangular igniter button. There are, however significant visual differences.
The windscreen of the 328 Patent has no surface ornamentation while the Vector Titanic has a
rectangular indentation of vertical lines on the side surfaces and the Accused Product has a
pattern of circular indentations on each side, a visual reference to its sister lighter, the Vector
Thunderbird 1. The igniter button of the 328 Patent is less than half the overall height of the
windscreen while the igniter buttons of the Vector Titanic and the Accused product are
approximately 2/3rds the height of the windscreens. The top surface of the 328 Patent igniter
button is flat while the top surface of the Vector Titanic has a slight concave curve from the
windscreen to the edge of the lighter and the top surface of the igniter button of the Accused
Product curves downward and away from the windscreen. The top surface of the igniter button of
the 328 Patent has recessed lines running from side-to-side while the Accused Product has
raised lines running from side-to-side.

328 Patent Fig. 4 Vector Titanic Accused Product
- 35 -

9. A side-by-side comparison of the side views of the D328 Patent, the Vector
Titanic, and the Accused Product is illustrated above. When the primarily functional elements
are eliminated from comparisons, the visual differences between them are significant. This view
dramatically illustrates that the decorative indentations of the side of the windscreens of the
Vector Titanic and the Accused Product differentiate them from the unadorned windscreen of the
328 Patent. The igniter buttons of the Vector Titanic and the Accused Product are
approximately 2/3rds the overall height of the windscreens while the igniter button of the 328 is
much shorter in proportion to its windscreen. Finally, the top surface of the igniter button of the
328 Patent is flat while the tops of the igniter buttons of the Vector Titanic and the Accused
Product are curved.
10. The visual comparisons offered above clearly demonstrate that there are
significant visual differences between the 328 Patent and both the Vector Titanic and the
Accused Product. These comparisons, in fact, clearly demonstrate that the Accused Product more
closely resembles the prior art, specifically the Vector Titanic, than it does the 328 Patent. As
the Vector Titanic was readily available and in commercial distribution prior to the application
filing of the 328 Patent, it would be known to the ordinary observer familiar with the prior art.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that an ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art, would find
that the Accused Product is not substantially similar to the design in the 328 Patent. Thus, an
ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art (particularly the Vector Titanic lighter) and giving
such attention as a purchaser normally does, would not purchase the Accused Product supposing
it to be the design in the 328 Patent.
11. For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that the Accused Product does not
infringe the 328 Patent.
12. To the extent that the previous argument for non-infringement is deemed
insufficient on its own, the following additional argument for non-infringement is offered.
- 36 -
regard verbal elaboration as necessary or helpful). As was stated previously, I understand that
the prior art is important in defining the claimed subject matter. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v.
Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ([A] court may find it helpful to point out . . . various
features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the prior art). More
particularly, I understand that where the claimed design is close to the prior art, small differences
are likely to become more important. Id. at 676. As the category of butane-fueled lighters is
robust with examples of prior art (despite the lack of prior art cited in the D328 Patent
application), the ordinary observer of lighters would be drawn to small visual differences when
purchasing such products.
14. Illustrated below are side-by-side comparisons of the Figures of the 328 Patent
with corresponding images of the Accused Product.

D498,328 Accused Product

- 37 -

15. A side-by-side comparison of Fig. 1 of the 328 Patent and the Accused Product
is illustrated above. When the primarily functional elements are eliminated from comparisons,
the visual differences between them are significant. This view dramatically illustrates that the
decorative indentations of the side of the windscreen of the Accused Product differentiates it
from the unadorned windscreen of the 328 Patent. The igniter button of the Accused Product is
approximately 2/3rds the overall height of the windscreens while the igniter button of the 328 is
much shorter in proportion to its windscreen. Finally, the top surface of the igniter button of the
328 Patent is flat while the top of the igniter button of the Accused Product is curved.

is illustrated above. This view clearly shows that left-to-right proportion of the windscreen is
longer than the corresponding width of the Accused Product. Additionally, it is clear that linear
indentations on the top surface of the igniter buttons are more numerous (8), curved, and
indented on the 328 Patent as compared with the lines on the Accused Product which are fewer
(4), curved, and raised.
- 38 -

is illustrated above. All of the visible elements of this view are primarily functional and
accordingly factored out of comparison.

is illustrated above. This comparison clearly indicates the difference in width of the windscreens
with that of the 328 Patent being substantially wider than that of the Accused Product. This
view also dramatically illustrates that the decorative indentations of the side of the windscreen of
the Accused Product differentiates it from the unadorned windscreen of the 328 Patent. The
igniter button of the Accused Product is approximately 2/3rds the overall height of the
windscreens while the igniter button of the 328 is much shorter in proportion to its windscreen.
Finally, the top surface of the igniter button of the 328 Patent is flat while the top of the igniter
button of the Accused Product is curved and slopes downward and away from the windscreen.
The corner edge of the igniter button is softened by a radius on the 328 Patent while there is an
overhanging edge on the Accused Product.
- 39 -
is illustrated above. This comparison clearly indicates that the width of the windscreen of the
328 Patent is greater than the corresponding proportion of the Accused Product.
is illustrated above. The comparison of visual features is the same as described in Fig. 4.

- 40 -
is illustrated above. This comparison illustrates the difference in width of the windscreens and
igniter buttons with the windscreen of the 328 being wider than that of the Accused Product and
the igniter button of the Accused Product being wider than that of the 328 Patent. Additionally,
the top surface of the Accused Product igniter button is visible as it is curved and slopes
downward and away from the windscreen. The top of the igniter button of the 328 Patent is not
visible in this view because it is flat and parallel to the top surface of the windscreen.
22. In my opinion the ordinary observer test set forth in Egyptian Goddess and
Gorham has not been met. Specifically, it is my opinion that an ordinary observer, conversant in
the prior art, would not find the accused product to be substantially similar to the design in the
328 Patent. Given the breadth and range of prior art available, an ordinary observer would be
drawn to those differences between the claimed design and the accused product, even if those
differences were small. It is my opinion that the differences between the design of the 328
Patent and the Accused Product are material, particularly given the closeness of the 328 Patent
to the prior art. Thus, an ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art and giving such attention
as a purchaser normally does, would not purchase the accused product supposing it to be the
design in the 328 Patent.
- 41 -


3. Analysis of Non-Infringement of the D501,274 Patent.
24. Based upon my understanding of the pertinent law, it is my opinion that the
Accused Product does not infringe US Patent D501,274. Specifically, it is my opinion that the
Accused Product is more similar to the Vector X-Sonic lighter than it is to the 274 Patent. The
Victor X-Sonic lighter is un-cited prior art which was readily available and in commercial
distribution prior to the application filing of the 274 Patent.

D501,274 Vector X-Sonic Accused Product
______________________________________________________________________________
- 42 -

25. A side-by-side comparison of Fig. 1 of the 274 Patent and corresponding views
of the Vector X-Sonic and the Accused Product is illustrated above. When viewed side-by-side,
Figure 1 of the 274 Patent, the Vector X-Sonic and the Accused Product illustrate a similarity of
overall proportions of components that are not primarily functional. Specifically, each has a
generally rectangular windscreen and an adjacent generally rectangular igniter button. There are,
however significant visual differences. The windscreen of the 274 Patent has five indented
vertical lines on the side surfaces while the Vector X-Sonic has three indentation vertical lines
on the side surfaces and the Accused Product has a pattern of circular indentations on each side,
a visual reference to its sister lighter, the Vector Thunderbird 1. The top surface of the 274
igniter button slopes downward and away from the windscreen and has a concave shape from
side-to-side while the top surfaces of the igniter buttons of the Vector X-Sonic and Accused
Product curve downward and away from the windscreen with the surfaces being flat from side-
to-side on both. The top surface of the igniter button of the 274 Patent has eight recessed lines
running from side-to-side while the Accused Product has four raised lines running from side-to-
side. The X-Sonic has two recessed horizontal lines on the three visible sides of its igniter button.
328 Patent Fig. 4 Vector X-Sonic Accused Product
- 43 -

of the Vector X-Sonic and the Accused Product is illustrated above. When the primarily
functional elements are eliminated from comparisons, the visual differences between them are
significant. The proportions of the windscreens are different in each example with the
windscreen of the 274 Patent visibly wider than those of the Vector X-Sonic and the Accused
Product. The windscreen of the 274 Patent has an extension of the side panels in the form of a
panel that extends to the end of the lighter with the top edge of the wall beginning at
approximately 40% of the overall height of the windscreen and tapering to the bottom outside
edge of the igniter button. These sloping walls of these extensions of the windscreen are parallel
to the top edge of the igniter button as it slopes down and away from the windscreen in a straight
line. This view dramatically illustrates that the decorative indentations of the side of the
windscreens of all three have indented designs, but each are different. The windscreen of the
274 Patent has five indented vertical lines on the side surfaces while the Vector X-Sonic has
three indented vertical lines on the side surfaces and the Accused Product has a pattern of eight
circular indentations on each side, a visual reference to its sister lighter, the Vector Thunderbird
1. The top surface of the 274 igniter button slopes straight downward and away from the
windscreen while the top surfaces of the igniter buttons of the Vector X-Sonic and Accused
Product curve downward and away from the windscreen. The igniter buttons of the Vector X-
Sonic and the Accused Product are approximately 2/3rds the overall height of the windscreens
while the igniter button of the 274 is much taller in proportion to its windscreen, approximately
3/4ths the overall height of the windscreen. Finally, the top edge of the igniter button of the 274
Patent is straight while the top edges of the igniter buttons of the Vector X-Sonic and the
Accused Product are curved.

- 44 -

of the Vector X-Sonic and the Accused Product is illustrated above. When the primarily
functional elements are eliminated from comparisons, the visual differences between them are
significant. Of particular note in these views is the difference between the igniter buttons. The
top surface of the 274 igniter button has a concave curvature from side-to-side while the top
surfaces of the Vector X-Sonic and the Accused Product are flat from side-to-side. There is also
more of the top surface of the 274 Patents igniter button visible in this view than in the other
two examples. This confirms that the top surface of the igniter button slopes downward and away
from the windscreen than does either of the other two examples.
28. The visual comparisons offered above clearly demonstrate that there are
significant visual differences between the 274 Patent and both the Vector X-Sonic and the
Accused Product. These comparisons, in fact, clearly demonstrate that the Accused Product more
closely resembles the prior art, specifically the Vector X-Sonic, than it does the 274 Patent. As
the Vector X-Sonic was readily available and in commercial distribution prior to the application
filing of the 274 Patent, it would be known to the ordinary observer familiar with the prior art.
Accordingly, it is my opinion that an ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art, would find
the Accused Product is not substantially similar to the design in the 274 Patent. Thus, an
ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art (particularly the Vector X-Sonic lighter) and giving
328 Patent Fig. 7 Vector X-Sonic Accused Product
- 45 -
such attention as a purchaser normally does, would not purchase the Accused Product supposing
it to be the design in the 274 Patent.
30. To the extent that the previous argument for non-infringement is deemed
insufficient on its own, the following additional argument for non-infringement is offered.
regard verbal elaboration as necessary or helpful). As was stated previously, I understand that
the prior art is important in defining the claimed subject matter. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v.
Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ([A] court may find it helpful to point out . . . various
features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the prior art). More
particularly, I understand that where the claimed design is close to the prior art, small differences
are likely to become more important. Id. at 676. As the category of butane-fueled lighters is
robust with examples of prior art (despite the lack of prior art cited in the 274 Patent
application), the ordinary observer of lighters would be drawn to small visual differences when
purchasing such products.
- 46 -

32. Illustrated below are side-by-side comparisons of the Figures of the 274 Patent
with corresponding images of the Accused Product.

D501,274 Accused Product

is illustrated above. When the primarily functional elements are eliminated from comparisons,
the visual differences between them are significant. This view dramatically illustrates that the
decorative indentations of the side of the windscreen of the Accused Product differentiates it
from the decorative indentations on the windscreen of the 274 Patent. The igniter button of the
Accused Product is approximately 2/3rds the overall height of the windscreen while the igniter
button of the 274 Patent is approximately 3/4ths the overall height of the windscreen. Finally,
the top surface of the igniter button of the 274 Patent slopes downward and away from the
windscreen and has a concave curvature from side-to-side while the top of the igniter button of
the Accused Product slopes downward and away from the windscreen in a curved line with a
surface that is flat side-to-side.
- 47 -
is illustrated above. This view clearly shows that left-to-right proportion of the 274 Patents
windscreen is longer than the corresponding width of the Accused Product. Additionally, it is
clear that linear indentations on the top surface of the igniter buttons are more numerous (8),
curved, and indented on the 274 Patent as compared with the lines on the Accused Product
which are fewer (4), curved, and raised.
is illustrated above. All of the visible elements of this view are primarily functional and
accordingly factored out of comparison.
- 48 -
is illustrated above. This comparison clearly indicates the difference in width of the windscreens
with that of the 274 Patent being substantially wider than that of the Accused Product. The
windscreen of the 274 Patent has five indented vertical lines on the side surfaces while the
Accused Product has a pattern of eight circular indentations on each side, a visual reference to its
sister lighter, the Vector Thunderbird 1. The top surface of the 274 Patents igniter button slopes
downward and away from the windscreen while the top surface of the igniter button of the
Accused Product curves downward and away from the windscreen.
37. The windscreen of the 274 Patent has an extension of the side panels in the form
of a panel that extends to the end of the lighter with the top edge of the wall beginning at
approximately 40% of the overall height of the windscreen and tapering to the bottom outside
edge of the igniter button. These sloping walls of these extensions of the windscreen are parallel
to the top edge of the igniter button as it slopes down and away from the windscreen in a straight
line. The top surface of the 274 Patents igniter button slopes straight downward and away from
the windscreen while the top surfaces of the igniter button of the Accused Product curves
downward and away from the windscreen. The igniter button of the Accused Product is
approximately 2/3rds the overall height of the windscreens while the igniter button of the 274
Patent is much taller in proportion to its windscreen, approximately 3/4ths the overall height of
the windscreen.
- 49 -
is illustrated above. This comparison indicates that the width of the windscreen of the 274
Patent is slightly larger than the corresponding proportion of the Accused Product.
is illustrated above. The comparison of visual features is the same as described in Fig. 4.
- 50 -
is illustrated above. This comparison illustrates the difference in width of the windscreens and
igniter buttons with the windscreen of the 274 Patent being wider than that of the Accused
Product. Additionally, the top surface of the Accused Product igniter button is visible as it is
curved and slopes downward and away from the windscreen. The top surface of the 274 Patents
igniter button has a concave curvature from side-to-side while the top surface of the Accused
Product is flat from side-to-side. There is also more of the top surface of the 274 Patents igniter
button visible in this view than in the Accused Product. This confirms that the top surface of the
igniter button slopes downward and away from the windscreen more than does the Accused
Product.
41. In my opinion the ordinary observer test set forth in Egyptian Goddess and
Gorham has not been met. Specifically, it is my opinion that an ordinary observer, conversant in
the prior art, would not find the accused product to be substantially similar to the design in the
274 Patent. Given the breadth and range of prior art available, an ordinary observer would be
drawn to those differences between the claimed design and the accused product, even if those
differences were small. It is my opinion that the differences between the design of the 274
Patent and the accused product are material, particularly given the closeness of the D274 Patent
to the prior art. Thus, an ordinary observer, conversant in the prior art and giving such attention
- 51 -
as a purchaser normally does, would not purchase the accused product supposing it to be the
design in the 274 Patent.

CONCLUSION
43. For the foregoing reasons, the D498,328 and D501,274 Patents are invalid
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and/or 112 and are not infringed by the Accused Product.

REVISION OR SUPPLEMENTATION
I am continuing my study and analysis of the information and materials that I have
considered in preparing this report. From time to time, I may refine or expand on my opinions
during the course of that further study. Also, I reserve the right to supplement or modify my
opinions in the event that additional information is brought to my attention. I expect to reevaluate
my opinions if the Court issues a claim construction.

Moreover, at trial, I may testify about matters: (1) raised on direct or cross-examination;
(2) necessary to rebut any matters that the Court allows Revision to introduce or rely upon; or (3)
otherwise raised at trial by counsel or the Court in relation to matters set forth herein. In addition
to the items identified above, my testimony may also be based, in part, upon the trial testimony
of fact witnesses and other expert witnesses.
- 52 -
OTHER
My prior experience as an expert witness, testifying at trial or in a deposition within the
preceding four years is set forth in Exhibit C.

I expect to use demonstrative and illustrative exhibits at trial to help explain my opinions
as set forth in this report and the reasoning for those opinions. Any such exhibits or
demonstratives shall be disclosed in accordance with the pretrial process and procedures set by
the Court.

Dated: May 24, 2013
Ronald B. Kemnitzer


EXHIBIT 1

Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) Fact Sheet

The Industrial Designers Society of America began in 1965 out of the merger of several organizations
to include American Designers Institute (ADI), Industrial Designers Institute (IDI), Industrial Designers
Education Association (IDEA), Society of Industrial Designers (SID) and American Society of
Industrial Designers (ASID).
IDSAs core purpose is to advance the profession of industrial design through education, information,
community and advocacy.
IDSA creates value by
Publishing Innovation, a quarterly professional journal of industrial design practice and education
in America
Developing and organizing a joint national conference and education symposium each year,
which brings together industrial designers, educators, business executives and students from all
over the world
Hosting five district conferences annually where design practitioners, educators and students
gather to consider the state of the profession
Creating and conducting the annual International Design Excellence Awards (IDEA) and
distributing information on the winners to the business, general, international and US design
media
Hosting a website to communicate with the industrial design community, to keep members
informed and to provide a place for unique content and dialogue to share
Distributing designBytes email that highlights the latest news and trends in the design world
Providing statistical research studies on professional practice, and the structure and financing of
consulting and corporate design organizations
Advocating for the industrial design community to federal agencies and state governments
Serving as the primary information resource on design for national newspapers, magazines and
television networks
Acting as a clearinghouse for design information requested by the general public
To serve the interests and activities of its members, IDSA formed 17 special interest sections.

Communicative Environments
Consumer Electronics
Design History
Design for the Majority
Design Protection
Design Research
Diversity
Ecodesign
Furniture

Housewares
Human Interaction
Materials & Processes
Medical
Product Development
SAGE
Women in Design
Young Professional

IDSA has five districts, 29 professional chapters in the US, China and Germany, and a
number of student chapters throughout the nation.
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of 3
NATIONAL:
Northeast District
Boston
Central N.Y.
Mid-Atlantic
New York
Philadelphia
Rhode Island

Southern District
Atlanta
Carolina
Florida
Texas

Central District
Central Ohio
Michigan
Northern Ohio
Southern Ohio
Western Pennsylvania

Midwest District
Chicago
Indiana
Kansas City
St. Louis
Wisconsin

West
Arizona
Los Angeles
Northwest
Oregon
Rocky Mountain
San Francisco
Silicon Valley

INTERNATIONAL:
China Chapter
Munich Chapter

Additional IDSA Facts:

As of January 2012, IDSAs total membership is over 3,000. IDSAs membership is made up
of US-based design consultants, corporate designers and designer educators (66 percent);
students (28 percent); affiliates (4 percent) and international members (2 percent).
IDSA members are present in every major design office and design consultancy.
IDSAs membership shapes the human experience of products through their work in diverse
product categories such as computers (Apple, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, IBM),
consumer electronics (Nokia, Motorola, Bose, Garmin, T-Mobile, Samsung), transportation
(Volvo, Honda, Cessna), medical equipment (Bayer, GE Healthcare, Ethicon Endosurgery,
Philips), furniture (Steelcase, Herman Miller, Hayworth), housewares and home goods
(Whirlpool, Tupperware, Kohler), toys (Radio Flyer, Mattel, Hasbro, Fisher-Price) and
industrial equipment (Black + Decker, Crown, CCI, TTI).
According to Design Intelligences Almanac of Architecture & Design 2011, there are over
1,900 design firms in the US. IDSA estimates that in the US there are between 15,000 to
18,000 practicing design professionals. IDSA lists 61 schools that have industrial design
programs.
IDSA is a member of the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (Icsid), a
global body representing over 50 countries.
IDSA participates in the US Design Policy Council, The Designers Accord and the Living
Principles Initiatives.

Exhibit 1
Page 2 of 3
About Industrial Design
Industrial design (ID) is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and
specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of products and systems for the
mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

Industrial designers develop these concepts and specifications through collection, analysis and
synthesis of data guided by the special requirements of the client or manufacturer. They are
trained to prepare clear and concise recommendations through drawings, models and verbal
descriptions.

Industrial design services are often provided within the context of cooperative working
relationships with other members of a development group. Typical groups include management,
marketing, engineering and manufacturing specialists. The industrial designer expresses
concepts that embody all relevant design criteria determined by the group.

The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis on those aspects of the product or
system that relate most directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This contribution
requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile, safety and convenience criteria, with concern
for the user. Education and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user are essential industrial design
resources.

Industrial designers also maintain a practical concern for technical processes and requirements
for manufacture; marketing opportunities and economic constraints; and distribution sales and
servicing processes. They work to ensure that design recommendations use materials and
technology effectively, and comply with all legal and regulatory requirements.

In addition to supplying concepts for products and systems, industrial designers are often
retained for consultation on a variety of problems that have to do with a client's image, such as
product and organization identity systems, development of communication systems, interior
space planning and exhibit design, advertising devices and packaging and other related services.
Their expertise is sought in a wide variety of administrative arenas to assist in developing
industrial standards, regulatory guidelines and quality control procedures to improve
manufacturing operations and products.

Industrial designers, as professionals, are guided by their awareness of obligations to fulfill
contractual responsibilities to clients, to protect the public safety and well-being, to respect the
environment and to observe ethical business practices. In conclusion, designers unique way of
thinking and processes are called into play to solve business problems as well as creating
physical products.

###
Exhibit 1
Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT 2
Patents Issued to Ronald B. Kemnitzer

Patent Number Date Issued Title
D219,394 12/08/1970 Cordless Electric Lawn Mower
D231,146 4/2/1974 Hair Dryer with Mist Dispenser
3,849,912 11/26/1974 Educational Toy
D234,193 1/28/1975 Combined Dial and Hand For A Clock
D236,267 8/12/1975 Faade For An Electric Humidifier
D321,617 11/19/1991 Chair Arm
D348,016 6/21/1994 Cable Locator
5,431,202 7/11/1995 Medical fluid flow control system and compounder apparatus
D362,638 9/26/1995 Receiver for Cable and fault locator system
D381,828 8/5/1997 Chair
D408,165 4/20/1999 Chair
D408,663 4/27/1999 Chair Arm
5,954,396 9/21/1999 Chair construction
5,961,134 10/5/1999 Apparatus for housing and transporting, and furnishing an
adjustable user-platform for a portable computer
D425,319 5/23/2000 Chair with end panel
D437,124 2/6/2001 Chair
D554,259 10/30/2007 Oral Appliance Device
D554,260 10/30/2007 Oral Appliance Device

Exhibit 2
Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT A
RONALD B. KEMNITZER FIDSA

School of Architecture +Design
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
201 Cowgill Hall (0205)
Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
Telephone: 540-231-1222
Fax: 540-231-9938
rkemnitz@vt.edu

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION:
Northern Illinois University. DeKalb, Il. MA in Design, 1973. Graduation with Honors.
Loyola College. Baltimore, Maryland. Graduate School of Business. Management Program.
University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, Ohio. BS in Industrial Design, 1967.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Blacksburg, VA. 2004- present.
Professor of Industrial Design. Chair, Industrial Design Program, 2008-2011.
Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Nierenberg Distinguished Visiting
Professor of Design, 2003-4.
University of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas. On Leave-of-Absence 2003-2004. Professor 2002 - 2004.
Associate Professor of Design (tenured) 1997 - 2002. Assistant Professor of Design
1994 - 97.
Part-time Lecturer 1992-94. Teaching responsibilities in: Visual Presentation, Portfolio,
Design II, Design III, Design IV, Thesis I and Thesis II, and Special Problems (Computers In
Design, Exhibition Design). Faculty Advisor to Student Chapter of IDSA.
National Taipei Institute of Technology. Taipei, Republic of China. December 1990. One of two US
Designer/Educators selected to organize and conduct a two-week professional
development workshop for furniture designers in the Republic of China.
Kansas City Art Institute. Kansas City, Missouri. Associate Professor of Design (tenured) 1981- 89.
Co- Chair of the Design Department 1987-89. Teaching responsibilities in all levels of
Industrial Design, Exhibition Design, Package Design, Design Illustration, and Computers In
Design. Co-Chair of the Accreditation Committee 1988-89. Co-Chair of the Long Range
Planning Committee 1988-89. Co-coordinator of the Design Internship Program.
University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, Ohio. Summer Quarter 1982. Visiting Associate Professor of
Industrial Design. Teaching responsibilities in 4th and 5th year Industrial Design Studio and
Manufacturing Materials and Processes.
Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan. Assistant Professor 1973-78. Associate Professor
(tenured)1978-81. Head of the Industrial Design Program 1977-81. Teaching
responsibilities in Basic Design, Design Communication, Industrial Design, Photography.
Established and administered the Design Internship Program.
Northern Illinois University. DeKalb, Illinois. Graduate Teaching Assistant 1972-73. Teaching
responsibilities in Two and Three Dimensional Design and Basic Freehand Drawing.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Design Management Center Villa Tosca, USA. 2001 Present. President. An affiliate office of DMC Villa
Tosca in Milan, Italy. A consulting organization dedicated to the development of design
methodologies for a changing world and design research tools for multinational corporations.
Kemnitzer Design, Inc., Kansas City, MO. 1985-2003. President. A small design consulting firm
specializing in industrial design and visual merchandising. Clients included:
Ambassador Cards, B&E Aerospace, Cramer Sports Products, Fixtures Furniture Company,
Select Brands Appliances, Lee Apparel Company, Bushnell Sports Optics, Medi-Flex
Hospital Products, Hallmark Cards, Paoli Furniture Company, Script-Pro LLC, Virco
Manufacturing Company, Sprint PCS, World2Toys, and numerous others.
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 6

Midwest Design Inc., Kansas City, Missouri. 1981-1985. Vice-President. A design consulting firm
with activity in product design, package design, exhibition design, graphic design, and
color development. Clients included Butler Manufacturing Company, Consolidated
Aluminum Company, Locke Stove Company, Kansas City Southern Industries, McGee
Radio Company.
Sunbeam Appliance Company. Oak Brook, Illinois. 1970-72. Senior Designer. Primary responsibility in
product design, package design and graphic design.
Black & Decker Manufacturing Company. Towson, Maryland. 1968-70. Staff Designer with
responsibility in product design and package design.
Pentes Design Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1967-68. Staff Designer with responsibility in package
graphic, exhibition and interior design and audio-visual production.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:
Industrial Designers Society of America.
National participation:
Elected to The Academy of Fellows, 2004.
Chairman of the Board, 2007-2009.
President, Chief Elected Officer. Board of Directors 2005-2007.
Secretary/Treasurer, member of Planning Committee, Executive Committee and Board of
Directors. J anuary, 2001 - 2003.
Chair, Lifelong Learning Committee. 2000 - 2003.
Education Chair, member of Planning Committee and Board of Directors. J anuary 1999 - 2001.
Initiated collaborative curriculum relationship with the International Technology Education
Association. Initiated collaborative development of 'Distance Learning Masters' with
Arizona State University. Negotiated annually renewable software grants for all 54
accredited Industrial Design programs with Ashlar Software Company and think3
Company valued at approximately $24 million dollars for the first year.
District Participation:
Midwest District Vice President. Elected to two-year term 1997-99.
Chair and organizer of the 1996, 97 and 98 Midwest District Conferences.
Chair and organizer of the IDSA National Education Conference. 1999, 2000.
Member of Executive Committee and Board of Directors J anuary 1997 - 1999.
Chairman of the 1994 Nominations Committee.
Member of the Board of Directors. 1982-84, 1984-86. 1988- 2003.
Chairman of the Education Group for the 1985 Worldesign Conference of the Council of Societies
of Industrial Design (ICSID). Washington, DC.
Education Committee 1980-83. (Chairperson 1982-83).
Accreditation Committee of the Design Foundation 1982-84. This committee developed the
accreditation standards for industrial design programs that have been adopted by the
National Association of Schools of Art and Design.
Member of the Planning Committee for the Chicago '83 National Conference.
Local participation:
Founder of the Kansas City Chapter. 1988.
Chairperson of the Kansas City Chapter. 1988-1992. In the first year of the chapter, a successful
international design competition titled 'Toast To The Future' was developed with the
sponsorship of the Black & Decker Mfg. Co. The chapter was recognized for having the
highest membership growth of all chapters for 1990 (24% increase).

RESEARCH, GRANTS & COMPETITONS:
Awarded National Science Foundation Grant. One of six Co-Principal Investigators for a $396,000 grant:
Building New Engineering Educational Theory and Practice for Interdisciplinary Pervasive
Computing Design. J une, 2009.

Exhibit A
Page 2 of 6
Member of Interdisciplinary faculty research team selected by Virginia Tech as one of three groups in the
inaugural Interdisciplinary Research Team Fellowships, an initiative to prepare teams of
experienced researchers for success in the preparation and management of large,
interdisciplinary, and/or multi-institutional awards. 2007-2009.
Procter and Gamble Student Design Collaborative. Member of interdisciplinary student/faculty group that
was one of four academic institutions selected for this semester-long design collaborative on
design initiatives for the aging consumer. 2006.
USA Design Trends research project. A proprietary research project that samples images published in
selected periodicals and identifies current visual trends in the areas of Architecture, Interior
Design, and Industrial Design. The compilation of this research in limited edition book form
was subscribed to by Sony Corp., Panasonic, Toshiba, J VC J apan, Sharp Electronics J apan,
NEC J apan, Mitsubishi J apan, and Shonan Design J apan.
'Washing The Time' Competition Workshop. Organized by DMC Villa Tosca Design Management
Center, Milan, Italy. J une-December, 2000. A competition workshop sponsored by
Maytag International to design a new laundry washing machine for the European market.
Only US designer selected among 6 participants. Awarded First Place.
'Purity & Cleaners 2' Design Competition Workshop. Organized by DMC Villa Tosca Design Management
Center, Milan, Italy. Sponsored by Panasonic USA to design a new vacuum cleaner for the
North American retail market. J une, 1999 - J une, 2000. Only US designer invited. Awarded
2nd Place.
Design For Rescue & Relief Program. 'Lifting Device For Disaster Rescue Efforts'. Sponsored by the
International Council of Societies of Industrial Design, the International Red Cross, and the
United Nations Disaster Relief Organization. 1979.
MSU All-University Research Initiation Grant. 'Playgrounds For Handicapped Children'. 1977.
Summer Assignment to the MSU Humanities Center for the development of play materials for
handicapped children. 1976.

PUBLICATIONS (Books, Articles, Media):
"The Mathematics of Beauty". Co-authored with Augusto Grillo, Director of DMC Villa Tosca. Milan,
Italy. Invited article for 'Innovation' magazine published by the Industrial Designers Society
of America. Winter, 2001 issue.
"Animation - A Playful Reality". Published in 'Aedo-Ba' magazine. Fall, 2001 issue.
"A Most Awesome Sneak Peak". Published in 'Innovation' magazine. Spring, 2000 issue.
"Numbers and Aesthetics... Beauty and its Mathematical Roots". A multi-media CD produced by
DMC Villa Tosca, Milan, Italy. J uly, 2001.
"A Brief History of American Telephone Design". Published in 'Aedo-Ba' magazine. Milan, Italy. Spring,
2000 issue.
Rendering With Markers. Author. Published by Watson-Guptill Publications, Inc. 1983.
Videos: "Marker Rendering Techniques" and "Advanced Marker Rendering Techniques". Produced
and distributed by the Industrial Designers Society of America. 1985-90.

ACADEMIC PAPERS:
An Interdiscipinary Design Course for Pervasive Computing. J uried journal article co-authored with Tom
Martin, Eloise Coupey, Lisa McNair, Ed Dorsa, J ason Forsyth, and Sophie Kim. Published in
IEEE Pervasive Computing. Volume 11, Number 1, J anuary-March 2012.
Enhancing Biomedical Design Through Design Thinking. J uried paper accepted for presentation and
publication by the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference. Minneapolis, MN.
September, 2009.
Cultural Aspects of Design Thinking. J uried paper presented at and published by the 2009 IDSA National
Education Symposium. September, 2009. Miami, FL.
Things You Probably Didnt Think Of. Tips for creating a successful interdisciplinary product development
program. J uried paper presented at and published by the 2008 IDSA National
Education Symposium. September, 2008. Phoenix, AZ.

Exhibit A
Page 3 of 6
Cultural Modifiers of Visual Aesthetics. J uried paper accepted for presentation and publication by the 2004
National Education Conference of the Industrial Designers Society of America. Pasadena, CA.
September, 2004.
Are You Talking to Me? .. Teaching User-Centered Design. J uried paper accepted for presentation and
publication by the 2003 National Education Conference of the Industrial Designers Society of
America. New York, New York. August, 2003.
Designing Culturally Enriched Products for International Markets", co-authored with Augusto
Grillo, Director of DMC Villa Tosca, Milan, Italy. J uried paper presented at 2002 National
Education Conference of the Industrial Designers Society of America. San J ose, CA . J uly,
2002. Selected as one of two 'Outstanding Papers' to be published in 'Innovation'
magazine. Winter, 2002 issue.
"Numbers and Aesthetics... Beauty and its' Mathematical Roots", co-authored with Augusto Grillo,
Director of DMC Villa Tosca, Milan, Italy. J uried paper presented at 2001 National
Education Conference of the Industrial Designers Society of America. Boston, Mass.
August, 2001.
User Friendly Design Criteria for Seating, Storage and Office Systems". J uried paper presented at the
World Workplace' Symposium. Dallas, Texas September, 1997.
"Does Design Methodology Support 'Hunters' or 'Gatherers'?" J uried paper presented at National
Education Conference sponsored by the Industrial Designers Society of America. Santa
Fe, NM. 1995.
"The Product Design Process". J uried paper presented at the Design Michigan Conference on
Expanding Sales Through Product Innovation. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. May 1981.
"Designing Toys For Children Who Use Prosthetic Devices". J uried paper presented at the XI Congress
International Council of Societies of Industrial Design. Mexico City, Mexico. 1979.
"Selecting Toys For Handicapped Children". J uried paper presented at the International Convention,
Council For Exceptional Children. Dallas, Texas. April 1979.
"Design For Everyone - A Human Factors Model For Design Education". A juried paper presented at X
Congress International Council of Societies of Industrial Design. Dublin, Ireland. 1977.
"Toys As Learning Materials and Sensory Enhancers". J uried paper presented at 1976 Conference on
Systems and Devices for the Disabled. Tufts University-New England Medical Center.
Boston, Massachusetts.
"Design Of Toys For Hearing Impaired Children". J uried paper presented at IX Congress
International Council of Societies of Industrial Design. Moscow, USSR. October 1975.

PRESENTATIONS, SEMINARS, WORKSHOPS, JURIES:
Invited Primary External Advisor for the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Swire School of Design. 3-year
term from 2009 through 2012.
Invited J ury Chair. 2011 Brunell International Award Competition for Rail Transportation Design.
Washington, DC. J une-October, 2011.
Invited Speaker. American Public Transportation Association National Rail Conference, Topic: Visioning
the Next Generation of Intercity Rail Travel. Chicago, IL. J une, 2009.
Invited speaker: Focus Mutfak & Banyo Fair. Topic: International Design Trends in Home Appliances.
Istanbul, Turkey. May, 2009.
Invited judge. Design Turkey first National Industrial Design Competition. Istanbul, Turkey.
October 19-20, 2008.
Invited speaker. Design Turkey National Conference and Exhibition. Istanbul, Turkey.
October 21, 2008.
Invited External Advisor for new curriculum design. Hong Kong Design Institute. 2007-2008.
Invited participant: The Design Imperative Symposium sponsored by the University of Cincinnati.
Cincinnati, OH. March, 2006.
Invited speaker: Industrial Design Education in the USA presented at Education Day symposium
sponsored by Hong Kong Polytechnic, Hong Kong, China. November 19, 2005.
Invited speaker: The Future Practice of Industrial Design presented at the 2
nd
Latin American
Conference of the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design in Santiago, Chile
in J anuary, 2005.
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 6
J ury Co-coordinator: Microsoft/IDSA The Next PC Design Competition. Seattle, WA. Oct., 2005.

Invited chairman of the jury. Marksman Design Award. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April, 2004.
Invited judge. 11
th
Annual International Housewares Association Student Design Competition.
Chicago, IL. J anuary, 2004.
Invited judge (1 of 3). Appliance (AM) Magazines 17
th
Annual Excellence in Design (EID) Competition.
February, 2004.
Invited to present seminar/workshop on User-Centered Design Methodology. Virginia Tech University.
September, 2003.
Invited participant in Teaching Methods Forum Panel at the 2003 National Education Conference of the
Industrial Designers Society of America. New York, New York.
Invited judge (1 of 3). Appliance (AM) Magazines 16
th
Annual Excellence in Design (EID) Competition.
February, 2003.
"Evolution of Product: Designing Contract Furniture". Invited 'Executive in Residence' presentation.
College of Human Environmental Sciences & Department of Environmental Design.
University of Missouri. Columbia, MO. September, 2001.
"Part Design for Manufacture". Invited presentation. Society of Plastics Engineering. Kansas City, MO.
April, 2001.
Invited juror for first international Internet design competition 'Nomad Lamp'. Sponsored by
www.aedo-to.com J une, 2001.
Invited participant in General Motors Student Sculpting Symposium. Warren, MI. Nov., 1999.
Invited participant in panel discussion at the 23rd Annual AUID Conference. October, 1999. The
University of Kansas. Lawrence, KS.
Official voting delegate of the Industrial Design Society of America at the 1999 Annual Conference
and Business Meeting of the National Association of Schools of Art & Design. October,
1999. Los Angeles, CA.
Group Discussion Leader on topic 'Technology In Education' at the 1999 Midwest District Conference
of IDSA. April, 1999. Madison, WI.
"Integration of Solid Modeling into Contemporary Industrial Design Practice". Alias World Tour of Solid
Modeling/Animation. St. Louis, MO. November, 1995.
Invited to speak at the Kansas City Art Institute on 'Industrial Design Communications'. Nov., 1995.
Panel discussion moderator. Midwest District Conference Industrial Designers Society of America.
Indianapolis, Indiana. 1995.
Group discussion moderator. National Education Conference of the Industrial Designers Society of
America. Dearborn, Michigan. 1994.
One of six industrial designers selected to serve as group discussion leaders on the transfer of
technology to consumer products at the 1994 National Conference of the Federal
Laboratories Consortium. Kansas City, Missouri April, 1994.
"The Design Process/Bola". A presentation on the design process used in the development of the Bola
chair. Presented to interior design groups throughout the US. 1988-92.
"Rendering Blue Prints". Lecture/Workshop. IDSA Annual Conference, August, 1987. Monterey, CA.

AWARDS, EXHIBITIONS, MEDIA:
Awarded 14 Design Patents and 4 Utility Patents from the United States Patent Office.
Named one of 25 educators by the Design and Future Council of Design Intelligence as most admired
and respected in the fields of interior design, interior architecture, architecture design,
architectural engineering, industrial design, and landscape architecture. 2008,2009, and
2011.
'Monsters of Design' Annual design competition co-sponsored by Kansas City AIA, AIGA and IDSA.
Award of Special Merit for design of a trade show exhibit for Lumen Center Italia.
August, 2002.
'Good Design' Award presented by the Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Architecture and Design for
the 'Kid's Console' produced by Hopkins Manufacturing Company. 2001
'Washing The Time' International Design Competition Workshop. Sponsored by Maytag International.
Organized by DMC Villa Tosca. Milan, Italy. J une-December,2000. First Place.
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 6
Featured as 'Designer of the Month' J anuary, 2001 by www.aedo-to.com
Featured as 'Designer of the Week' December 3-9, 2000 by www.aedo-to.com
'Purity & Cleaners' International Design Competition Workshop. Sponsored by Panasonic USA.
Organized by DMC Villa Tosca. Milan, Italy. J une, 1999 - J une, 2000. Second Place.

Published in 'Design Management', Fall 1998 issue. Published in Milan, Italy. Article on personal
design philosophy and examples of work
'Good Design' Award presented by the Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Architecture and Design for
the Bushnell Lytespeed 400 Laser Rangefinder. 1997.
QuBit' Digital Video Recorder designed for QuVIS, Inc. was named one of the 'Top Ten New Products' at
the 1996 National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Conference and Trade Show in Las
Vegas, NV.
Bronze OMA Award presented by the Point Of Purchase Advertising Institute (POPAI) for the design of a
retail merchandising system for Hallmark Cards, Inc. J anuary, 1995.
Work published in Innovation - Award Winning Industrial Design, published by PBC International, 1995.
'Product of the Year' Award by 'Plant Engineering' Magazine for the design of the Rycom 8870 Cable
Locator. February, 1994.
Bronze Award. IDEA Competition sponsored by the Industrial Designers Society of America and
'Business Week' Magazine for the design of the 'Pathfinder' Cable Locator. J uly, 1992.
Gold OMA Award presented by the Point Of Purchase Advertising Institute (POPAI) for the 'Best 'Retail
Environment of the Year'. 'Seasons Plus' program for Ambassador Cards Division of Hallmark
Cards, Inc. J anuary, 1991.
Gold Award presented by Institute of Business Designers and Contract Magazine for design of the
'BOLA' chair for Fixtures Furniture Company. October, 1988.
Featured in a nationally distributed news segment produced by Newsweek Broadcasting, Inc. The
segment 'Toys For Hearing Impaired Children' was broadcast on more than 120 stations.
April 1980.
'Design Michigan' Exhibition. Two entries accepted. Cranbrook Academy of Art.
Bloomfield Hills, MI. 1977.
'Design For Need' International Exhibition. Royal College of Art. London, England. 1976.
21st Annual Design Review. 'Industrial Design' Magazine. Package Design Award.
20th Annual Design Review. 'Industrial Design' Magazine. Graphic Design Award.
16th Annual Design Review. 'Industrial Design' Magazine. Product Design Award.

PUBLIC SERVICE:
NASAD Accreditation Review Team for the Industrial Design program at Philadelphia University.
Philadelphia, PA. March, 2011.

NASAD Accreditation Review Team for the Industrial Design program at Art Center College of Design.
Pasadena, CA. March, 2008.
Independent reviewer of the College of Liberal Arts of Purdue University. April, 2006.
NASAD Accreditation Review Team for the Industrial Design program at Notre Dame University.
April, 2004.
Organized, promoted, raised funds, supervised installation of the '100 Giants of Chair Design' exhibition
in the Art/Design Department Gallery. This event raised approximately $2000 for the KU
Student Chapter IDSA. November, 1999.
Trained Accreditation Evaluator. National Association of Schools of Art and Design. October, 1999.
Advisory Board. 'Art In The Woods' Exhibition sponsored by the City of Overland Park, Kansas. 1995
Boy Scouts of America. Merit Badge Instructor/Volunteer. 1998-2002.

Exhibit A
Page 6 of 6

EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
MATERIALS CONSIDERED BY RONALD B. KEMNITZER

Vector X-Sonic Lighter (see Invalidity Contentions)
Vector Titanic Lighter (see Invalidity Contentions)
Vector Thunderbird 1 Lighter (see Invalidity Contentions)
Vector Thunderbird 2 Lighter (see Invalidity Contentions)
Vector Thunderbird Torch Lighter (see e.g. D.I. 1-7)
Hague International Registration DM/056740 (the Hague Registration) (KGM0000041
KGM0000042)
Korean Utility Model Registration 1995-0005453 (the Korean Registration)
(KGM0000043 KGM0000047)
Zippopocket lighters on sale in the United States prior to Feb. 24, 2003. Described at
least in ZippoClick, Inaugural Issue, 2002. (KGM0000048 KGM0000058)
2001 Vector Catalog, KGM industries Co., Inc. (KGM0000566 KGM0000611)
Prometheus Catalog, Fall 2003-Fall 2004, Prometheus International, Inc. (2003
Prometheus Catalog) (KGM0000115 KGM0000214)
Prometheus Catalog, Fall 2001-Fall 2002, Prometheus International, Inc. (2001
Prometheus Catalog) (KGM0000215 KGM0000306)
Prometheus Catalog 2001 Supplement-12, Prometheus International, Inc. (Prometheus
Supplement) (KGM0000307 KGM0000318)
All Kinds of Lighters, Lighters Collection 99, Korea Lighter Industry Cooperative (the
Lighters Collection) (KGM0000319 KGM0000425)
1999 Vector Catalog, KGM industries Co., Inc. (KGM0000426 KGM0000465)
Tobacco Retailers Almanac, Annual Industry Directory, Retail Tobacco Dealers of
America, Inc., 64
th
Ed. 2000 (Tobacco Almanac) (KGM0000466 KGM0000515)
KGM Industries Co., Inc.s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
US Patent No. 2,032,695 (KGM0000001 KGM0000003)
US Patent No. D339,209 (KGM0000036 KGM0000037)
U.S. Patent No. D498,328 (D.I. 1-2)
U.S. Patent No. D501,274 (D.I. 1-5)
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 2
U.S. Patent No. D188,507 (KGM0000033)
U.S. Patent No. D320,467 (KGM0000612 KGM0000614)
U.S. Patent No. 2,517,191 (KGM0000004 KGM0000006)
U.S. Patent No. D397,497 (KGM0000034 KGM0000035)

Exhibit B
Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT C
1
Ronald B. Kemnitzer

List of cases in which, during the previous 4 years, Ronald B. Kemnitzer
has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition (my client underlined):

Date: Client
4/12/11 Case Datel Holdings Ltd. And Datel Design & Development, Inc. v. Microsoft
Corporation
Project: United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco
Division Case No. 09 - CV-05535 EDL
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA
Status: Settled prior to trial.

Litigation Support Experience (my client underlined):

Date: Client
2/15/08 Case International Seaway Trading Corporation v. Walgreens Corporation
Project: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case
9:08-cv-80163-KLR
Seiden, Alder, Matthewman & Bloch, P.A., Boca Raton, FL

Date: Client
5/9/08 Case Arnold Weiss and Silvia Lattova v. Nike, Inc. and Eastbay, Inc.
Project: United States District Court for the District of Columbia - Case No. 1:07-
cv-1019
Hudgins Law Firm, Alexandria, VA 22314

Date: Client
10/1/08 Case Capsmith, Inc. v. James s. Wysopal and JSW Enterprises, Inc.
Project: United States District Court Middle District Court of Florida Orlando
Division - Case No. 6:07-cv-01572-Orl-22KRS
Malin Haley DiMaggio Bowen & Lhota, PA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Date: Client
7/6/09 Case Appeal of denial of U.S. Patent Application
Provided written opinion/affidavit in support of appeal.
Project: Monobloc Rocking Chair
Inventor: Cooper C. Woodring
Saidman Design Law Group, LLCSilver Spring, MD
Status: Appeal approved. Patent issued.

Exhibit C
Page 1 of 2
2
Date: Client
7/11/11 Case Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al.
Project: United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco
Division Case No. 4:11 - CV- 01846 - LHK
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA.

Date:
3/17/12
Status:

Case:
Project:

Status:
J ury decision in favor of the Plaintiff

Client
Broan-Nutone, LLC v. Haier America Trading, LLC
United States District Court Western District of Wisconsin
Case No. 3:11-cv-707-wmc
Troutman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA
Settled prior to trial

Date: Client
8/15/12 Case Solar Rings, Inc. v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., C.D. California
Project: United States District Court Southern District of New York
Case No. CV11-06990 GAF (SPX)
Foley & Lardner LLP and Troutman Sanders LLP, Los Angeles, CA
Status: Settled prior to trial

Date: Client
10/4/12 Case Eye Safety Systens, Inc. v Revision Military, Ltd.
Project: United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Case No. 11cv636-REB
Parsons Behle & Latimer, Boise, Idaho and
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA

Date: Client
11/8/12 Case Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC. v Covidien
Inc. and Tyco Healthcare Group, LP
Project: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Case No. 1:11-CV-871
DLA Piper, LLP, Philade;phia, PA
Status: Pending

Date: Client
12/21/12 Case Oakley, Inc. v Hire Order, LTD d/b/a Handsfreevideo.com and
Distribution Sportsman Eyewear, LLC
Project: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Case No. 12CV2346 CAB MDD
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA

Exhibit C
Page 2 of 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 24, 2013, I served the foregoing document on the
interested parties in this action by transmitting an electronic copy of the document, via e-mail
and U.S. First Class Mail, to the following addresses:
Alex Alvarez, Esq.
355 Palermo Avenue
Tel: (305) 444-7675
Fax: (305) 444-0075
Email: mrm@cll.com
Email: asc@cll.com
Mark Montague, Esq.
Email: mxm@cll.com
Email: mgg@cll.com
1133 Avenue ofthe Americas
Tel: (212) 790-9200
Fax: (212) 575-0671
Attorneys for PlaintiffS
TIGAL COHEN HAREL wd rnTEGRAL L ; ; u ~
MichaelS. Lee
EXHIBIT 5
1
Page 1
1
Page 3
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 A P P E A R A N C E S:
3
3
-----------------------------------------
4
4 COWAN LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
YIGAL COHEN HAREL, an indivi dual; INTEGRAL
5 LOGISTICS. LLC, a Florida limited liability
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
company,
6 1133 Avenue of the Americas
7 Plaintiffs,
7 New York, New York 10036-6799
8 vs. Civil Action No.
8 BY: MICHAEL G. GABRIEL, ESQ. 1.12-cv-04527-ERK-WP
9
9 MEICHELLE ROSE MacGREGOR, ESQ.
10 K.K. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP .. K.K.
10 INTERNATIONAL CORP, et al.,
11
11
12 Defendants.
12
13 -------------------------------------------
13 NOTARO, MICHALOS & ZACCARIA, P.C.
14
14 Attorneys for Defendants
15
15 1270 Broadway
16 DEPOSITION OF YIGAL COHEN HAREL
16 Suite 807
17 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013
18 9:30a.m.
17 New York, New York 10001
19
18 BY: ANGELO NOTARO, ESQ.
20
19 BRADLEY S. CORSELLO, ESQ.
21
20
22
21
I
23
22
24
23
25 Reported by: Adrienne M. Mignano, RPR
24
Job Number: 334221
25
1
Page 2
1
Page 4
2 2
3 3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by
4 April 24, 2013 4 and between the attorneys for the respective
I
5 9:30a.m. 5 parties herein, that filing and sealing of
6 New York, New York 6 the transcript be waived, and the same are
7 7 hereby waived.
8 Deposition of YIGAL COHEN HAREL, 8 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
9 held at the offices of NOTARO, MICHALOS & 9 that all objections, except as to the form
10 ZACCARIA, P.C., 1270 Broadway, New York, New 10 of the question, shall be reserved to the
11 York, pursuant to Notice, before Adrienne M. 11 time of the trial.
12 Mignano, a Notary Public of the State of New 12 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED
13 York. 13 that the within deposition may be sworn to
14 14 and signed before any officer authorized to
15 15 administer an oath, with the same force and
16 16 effect as if signed and sworn to before the
17 17 Court.
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25

4527 BAREL 000804
Page 5 Page 7
1 1 Hare I
2 Y-1-G-A-L C-0-H-E-N H-A-R-E-L, called as 2
Q
Do you understand that your
3 a witness, having been duly sworn 3 answers are being given under oath subject
4 by a Notary Public, was examined and 4 to penalties of perjury?
5 testified as follows: 5 A Yes.
6 EXAMINATION BY 6
Q
If you should remember something
7 MR. NOTARO: 7 after you answer a question and would like
8
Q
Please state your full name and 8 to change your answer, just let me know,
9 personal address for the record. 9 and we'll give you an opportunity to do
10 A Yigal Cohen Harel, 2680 Riviera 10 that; okay?
11 Court, Weston, Florida 33332. 11 A Okay.
12
Q
Mr. Harel, my name is Angelo 12
Q
You should not answer a question
13 Notaro. I'm one of the attorneys for KK 13 until I complete the full question so that
14 International Trading Corporation. We're 14 you're answering the proper question;
15 here today in connection with a litigation 15 okay?
16 that you have commenced along with 16 A Yes.
17 Integral Logistics LLC against our client 17
Q
Do you have any questions about
18 in connection with two design patent 18 the deposition process?
19 applications that you own. 19 A Not so far.
20 Do you understand that 20 MR. NOTARO: Mr. Gabriel, I
21 everything that is said in this room will 21 understand that the witness is being
22 be taken down by the court reporter? 22 produced as the 30(b )(6) witness for
23 A Yes. 23 Integral Logistics in accordance with
24
Q
After I ask a question, please 24 our deposition notice and also
25 take your time to answer the question, to 25 testifying personally.
Page 6 Page 8
1 Hare I 1 Hare I
2 think about it. Some of the questions I 2 Can we stipulate to that?
3 ask may have to do with things that 3 MR. GABRIEL: Yes.
4 occurred a couple of years ago, so we want 4 MR. NOTARO: I will ask the
5 your best recollection. 5 court reporter to mark as Defendant's
6 Will you do that? 6 Exhibit 1 an Amended Notice of
7 A Yes. 7 Deposition of Integral Logistics LLC,
8
Q
If you don't understand any of 8 and as Exhibit 2 A notice of
9 my questions, please let me know and I 9 Deposition of Mr. Harel.
10 will rephrase the question. Otherwise, I 10 (Whereupon, Amended Notice of
11 will assume that you understand the 11 Deposition of Integral Logistics, was
12 question; okay? 12 marked as Defendant's Exhibit 1 for
13 A Okay, yes. 13 identification, as of this date.)
14
Q
Please answer each question 14 (Whereupon, Notice of Deposition
15 verbally without nods as the court 15 of Yigal Cohen Harel, was marked as
16 reporter can't record a nod; okay? 16 Defendant's Exhibit 2 for
17 A Yes. 17 identification, as of this date.)
18
Q
Mr. Gabriel from time to time 18 MR. GABRIEL: if I can just
19 may make objections to some of the 19 state for the record that the witness
20 questions that I pose. The objections are 20 is here as a fact witness and not as
21 for the record. If Mr. Gabriel objects, 21 an expert witness. To the extent that
22 you should nevertheless answer the 22 the deposition topics are calling for
23 question. 23 expert testimony, he will not be
24 Do you understand? 24 giving expert testimony.
25 A Yeah. 25 BY MR. NOTARO:

4527 BAREL 000805
Page 44 Page 46
1 Hare I 1 Hare I
2 those five pages? 2 mark it as Defendant's Exhibit 6 for
3 A I think it's quite precise. 3 identification.
4 Q Now, referring to page 3, 4 (Whereupon, Complaint for Patent
5 paragraph 7, the next to last sentence 5 Infringement, was marked as
6 says, "Integral does not have the right to 6 Defendant's Exhibit 6 for
7 sue for infringement under the '27 4 Patent 7 identification, as of this date.)
8 or the '328 Patent." 8 (Witness reviewing document)
9 Is that correct? 9 A That's my signature. Any
10 THE WITNESS: Can we talk for a 10 question?
11 second? 11 Q Have you had an opportunity to
12 MR. NOTARO: Do you want to go 12 review Exhibit 6?
13 off the record and talk for a second? 13 A Briefly.
14 MR. GABRIEL: If you allow us. 14 Q Did you review Exhibit 6 prior
15 MR. NOTARO: Off the record. 15 to the filing? This is the complaint in
16 {Thereupon, a recess was taken, 16 this lawsuit that we're in today.
17 and then the proceedings continued as 17 Did you have an opportunity to
18 follows:) 18 review Exhibit 6 prior to the filing of
19 A Yes. 19 the lawsuit?
20 Q And that's referring to the 20 A Yes. With the limitation of
21 exhibits, the patents that we've marked in 21 language, yes.
22 this deposition as Exhibits 3 and 4, 22 Q Paragraph 18 of the complaint
23 correct? 23 indicates that "Integral is a licensee of
24 A Yes. 24 the '274 and '328 Patents."
25 Q And the final sentence of 25 Do you see that?
Page 45 Page 47
1 Hare I 1 Hare I
2 paragraph 7 in Exhibit 5 indicates that 2 A Which paragraph, 18?
3 "Integral distributes and sells a lighter 3 Q Paragraph 18.
4 referred to as the Z-Pius TM under the 4 A Okay.
5 license." 5 Q Is Integral an exclusive or
6 Does that refresh your 6 nonexclusive licensee?
7 recollection as to whether that is one of 7 A Good question. I don't
8 the products that contained the designs of 8 remember. I really don't remember. But
9 either the '27 4 or the '328 Patents? 9 it is a verbal agreement.
10 A Yes, it's one of them. 10 Q Do you have the right to license
11 Q Which design does it include? 11 other companies if you want to?
12 A Z-Pius? 12 A Yes.
13 Q Yes. 13 Q Do you have any agreement with
14 A This one. 14 Integral that you will not license other
15 Q What exhibit are you referring 15 companies under the patents?
16 to? 16 A Under the agreement?
17 A 3. 17 Q Do you have any agreement with
18 Q So the Z-Pius contains the 18 Integral Logistics that indicates that you
19 design of Exhibit 3? 19 will not license other companies under
20 A 3, yeah. 20 the patents?
21 Q Yes? 21 A I don't have a written
22 A Yes. 22 agreement, so the agreement I have is
23 MR. NOTARO: I'm going to hand 23 between me and myself.
24 the court reporter a complaint for 24 Q So you can do anything you want
25 patent infringement and ask her to 25 pretty much?

4527 BAREL 000812
,----- --------- - - ------:::----:-:--r------- ------ ---:: ...
Page 48 Page 50
1 Harel 1
2 A Until recently. Now you gave me 2
3 a good point that I have to take care 3
4 about this. Thank you. 4
5 Q Did you inspect any products of 5
6 the defendant KK International prior to 6
7 the filing of this lawsuit? 7
8 A Yes. 8
9 Q What products did you inspect? 9
10 A This one. 10
11 Q You're referring to the product 11
12 that is in -- that's labeled in Exhibit C 12
13 of the complaint as the Jetline product, 13
14 sir? , 14
15 A Yeah, this one. And also this 15
16 one here. 16
17 Q What product are you referring 17
18 to now? 18
19 A (Indicating) 19
20 Q Referring to the page-- 20
21 A They should put page numbers 21
22 maybe. 22
23 This is the page number 26. 23
24 Q You're referring to page ID 24
25 number 26 of Exhibit 6? 25
Page 49
1 Harel 1
2 A Yes. 2
3 Q And when you say "this product", 3
4 are you referring to all of the designs 4
5 that are on that page? 5
6 A No, to that one piece, and I 6
7 just look at it. 7
8 MR. GABRIEL: Exhibit D. 8
9 Q And how did you get the one 9
1 0 piece that you looked at? 1 0
11 A The insert I got into my office, 11
12 someone ordered it from someone. And the 12
13 second one I saw now in his office 13
14 yesterday. 14
15 Q Yesterday? 15
16 A Yes. 16
17 Q That's the first time you saw -- 17
18 A It looked familiar to me. It's 18
19 possible I saw it before. 19
20 Q Did you approve the complaint 20
21 before it was filed? 21
22 A Yes. 22
23 MR. NOTARO: I'm going to mark 23
24 two additional copies of the patent. 24
25 I want to use them to label so we'll 25
Hare I
keep exhibits 3 and 4 clean, but we'll
have additional exhibits that have --
of those patents that have different
numbers which we're going to label.
I'll hand the court reporter
another copy of design patent 50127 4
and ask her to mark it for
identification as Defendant's 7, and
another copy of design patent 498238
and ask her to mark it for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit
8.
(Whereupon, Copy of Design
Patent 50127 4, was marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 7 for
identification, as of this date.)
(Whereupon, Copy of Design
Patent 498238, was marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 8 for
identification, as of this date.)
A We are still on this or I can
close it?
Q You can close it.
Referring, sir, to what has been
Page 51
Hare I
marked as Defendant's Exhibit 7, which is
the copy of the 501274 Patent--
A Is that the same, this one and
this one?
Q Right. These are different
numbers. They are the same, but we're
going to mark up this one so I wanted to
keep that one clean.
Referring to Exhibit 7, what
would you -- do you see the part that I'm
pointing to here?
A Uh-huh.
Q What would you call that part?
A I need you to put the bolder --
put the points from where to where, the
part you want to --
Q All right.
This is what I would call the
flame guard or chimney.
What would you call that part?
A Let me help you .
Q I'm going to ask you to mark it
on Exhibit 7.
A I need your definition on the
----------- -- .... -....L..------ -=--------- - ___J
4527 BAREL 000813
Page 138 Page 140
1 Hare I 1 Harel
2 them by names and she is in lunch, and she 2 it. This one here, Storm.
3 will be back and she will say the name. I
3
Q
Are you referring to the last
4 also ask him some questions, so you have 4 page of Exhibit 21, the Storm?
5 to come back to us on these.
5 A Yeah. It is a lighter that I
6 Q So we'll come back to these
6 launch in 1996.
7 later on. 7 Q And does that lighter have the
8 A Yes, do not forget. 8 designs that are either in Exhibits 3 or
9 Q You asked some questions that
9 4?
10 you got the answers to that we were 10 A This lighter, the Storm, no.
11 looking for. 11
Q
Does it have a push button?
12 A The only one I know was this
12 A All lighters have push button,
13 one, and there was another private person 13 or push button or flint wicks, not only
14 was not related to this. 14 this one.
15 Q Okay. 15
Q Does the push button have grip
16 I'm handing you a report of a 16 lines?
17 series of documents that are marked as 17 A Most of the push buttons have
18 KK488 to 495, and there is one additional 18 grip lines, otherwise they would slide.
19 page. 19
Q
So did you invent the grip
20 MR. NOTARO: And mark it for
20 lines?
21 identification as Defendant's Exhibit 21 A No.
22 21. 22 Q So that was known prior to your
23 (Whereupon, Series of Documents,
23 design of the designs that are shown in
24 Bates Stamped KK488 through 495, was 24 Exhibits 3 or 4?
25 marked as Defendant's Exhibit 21 for
25 A Yeah, if you do a push button,
Page 139 Page 141
1 Hare I
1 Hare I
2 identification, as of this date.)
2 most likely you will do a grip line.
3 (Witness reviewing document)
3 Q Now, referring to Exhibit 21,
4 BY MR. NOTARO:
4 the first page, Titanic, did you say that
5
Q
Have you had an opportunity to 5 the lighter shown there embodies your
6 look at Exhibit 21, Mr. Harel?
6 design on Exhibits 3 and 4?
7 A You mean now or in the past? 7 A What does that mean, "embody"?
8
Q
Now.
8 Q Does it contain your design of
9 A Yes, I'm looking.
9 Exhibits 3 or 4?
10 Q Have you ever seen any of the 10 A No. I mean, it's like if you
11 products that are shown in Exhibit 21 --
11 look at people and they both have eyes and
12 A Yes.
12 mouth and this, there are still some
13
Q
-- in the marketplace?
13 difference. You look at brothers, they
14 A Yes.
14 are very similar, but they are still not
15
Q
Referring first to the product
15 looking alike and they look alike, you
16 that's listed, identified as the Titanic,
16 know. So there are certain elements that
17 when was the first time you saw that
17 every lighter have, especially if you take
18 product?
18 the Piezo lighter, torch lighter flame
19 A Titanic I never saw.
19 that they have certain characteristics,
20
Q
Which products did you see?
20 but it does not mean look alike. This one
21 A In reality, I saw them in my
21 does definitely not look like my design.
22 eyes. Then there are one lighter in
22 They are push button, yes. They have
23 particular that is my own design. 23 burner cylinder, but they don't -- it's
24
Q
Which is that? 24 like you can compare it to iPhones, I
25 A I still own it, and I still sell
25 mean, you compare it to Smart Phone, all
Q E S Q Y ~ R
4527 BAREL 000835
Page 142 Page 144
1 Harel 1 Harel
2 of them have touch screen, on/off button,
3 but there is still something that make
2 people able to take pencil and to draw a
3 few lines and say, oh, this is Abraham
4 them different from the other is the major
5 outline of the product and they are not in
6 proportion or in shape combination that I
7 designed mine.
4 Lincoln, there is something in the patent
5 that describes this specific face, and
6 every design has these characteristics.
7 It is the dimension of shapes, a
8 Q In Exhibit 7, we identified the
9 vertical lines on the wind guard as
1 0 decoration lines?
8 combination of shapes, and the proportion
9 between the shapes that make this design
10 unique.
11 A Yes. 11 There is nothing specifically
12 Q Did lighters prior to your
13 design of the design in Exhibit 3 include
14 decorator lines on the wind guard of the
15 lighters?
12 you can say. You can take one element and
13 say this is a nose. This is also a nose.
14 But these two people have the same nose.
15 Still this face is different from this
16 A Yes, I recognize on one lighter. 16 face. That is what is different between
17 Q I'm not referring to Exhibit 21.
18 I'm going back to Exhibit 3, which is your
19 patent.
17 all of these designs that you showed me
18 here to my design. There are some things
19 you can say, oh, this specific point is
20 A Yes. 20 similar, but overall the characteristic
21 Q 501274.
22 A Yes.
21 combined together is creating a new face
22 basically.
23 Q If you recall, does it have 23 Q Were slanted push buttons used
24 decoration lines on the wind guard? 24 on lighters prior to your design in
25 A Yes. 25 Exhibit 3?
Page 143
1 Harel 1
2 Q So my question to you, sir, is: 2
3 Prior to your design of the lighter that's 3
4 shown in Exhibit 3, were there lighters 4
5 that used vertical decorated lines on wind 5
6 guards? 6
7 A Maybe, possibly. I see it now, 7
8 but it's possible the decoration lines is 8
9 nothing -- it's not part of my design. My 9
1 0 design is the overall major line that I 10
11 described before. There is a same lighter 11
12 with dimples and there is a same lighter 12
13 with logo of a famous brand, and I did on 13
14 the same lighter different decorations, 14
15 but the outside design remains the same. 15
16 Q When you refer to the outside 16
17 design, are you talking about the 17
18 silhouette, the periphery of the lighter? 18
19 A What is "silouhette" in English? 19
20 Q Are you referring to the outer 20
21 periphery of the lighter? 21
22 A No, we talked about, and I will 22
23 find the English word for it, there is a 23
24 major line that basically characterize the 24
25 look of the lighter. If you take certain 25
Page 145
Hare I
A Slanted, what is that?
Q Slanted push buttons. We talked
about the plunger, the gas plunger on your
lighter in Exhibit 3. And I think you
said the difference between Exhibit 3 and
Exhibit 4 was -- maybe you used the word
slant, but it was at an angle in Exhibit
3, were buttons at an angle in Butane
lighters used prior to your design, your
creation of design in Exhibit 3?
MR. GABRIEL: Objection.
Q You can answer.
MR. GABRIEL: If you understand
the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand
the question.
A I don't know if yes or no,
because when I design it, I design it
because that's what I want it to look
like. But as I said, again, and I
emphasize, a design is combination of
different parts, proportion and shapes and
feel, like the new face, and, therefore,
recognizing one element at a time and
4527 BAREL 000836
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hare I
Page 177
1 Hare I
2 --------------- I N D E X ----------------
3 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
4 YIGAL COHEN HAREL
(Whereupon, the testimony from
Page 178 to Page 180 has been marked
MR. NOTARO 5
confidential, excerpted, and bound
5
Separately) ---------------- EXHIBITS ----------------
Page 181
Hare I
MR. NOTARO: I have no further
questions.
MR. GABRIEL: Can we take a
30-second break?
(Thereupon, a recess was taken,
and then the proceedings continued as
follows:)
MR. GABRIEL: Plaintiff has no
questions.
(Time noted: 3:49p.m.)
YIGAL COHEN HAREL
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this day
of , 2013.
8 DEFENDANT'S FORID.
9 1 Amended Notice of Deposition of 8
10
Integral Logistics
11
2 of Yigal 8
12 3 U.S.Patent501274 30
13 4 U.S. Patent 498328 30
14 5 Declaration of Yigal Cohen Harel 42
15 6 Complaint for Patent Infringement 46
16 7 Copy of Design Patent 501274 50
17 8 Copy of Design Patent 498238 50
18 9 Photos of Z Torch-Insert 60
19 1 0 Photos of Z Torch- Lighter 63
20 11 Llighter 74
21
Bates Stamped Harel

22
13 Brochure 92
23
24
14 Bates Stamped Harel
25 15 Point of Sale DisRiay, Bates 102
Stamped Harel 000075
1
2 ----------------EXHIBITS----------------
3 DEFENDANT'S FOR ID.
83
98
4 16 Document, Bates Stamped Hare I 106
5
000094 through 109
17 Document, Bates Stamped Harel 111
6 000082 through 93
7 18 Printout from Website 125
8 19 Document, Bates Stamped KK000505 128
9
through KK000543
20 Bates Stamped KK000544 131
1 0 through 5o 7
11
21 Series of Documents, Bates Stamped 138
12 KK488 through 495
13 22 Documents, Bates Stamped Harel 158
000695 and Harel 000803
14
15
23 Bates Stamped Harel 165
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
167
172
Page 182
Page 183
4527 BAREL 000844
Page 184
1
Page 186
1
2 CERTIFICATE
2 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET
3 STATE OF NEW YORK)
3 PageNo. __
to:
Line No. __Change
4 ss
4 Reason lor
change:
5 COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
5
6
6 PageNo. __
to:
Line No. __ Change
7 I, Adrienne M. Mignano, a
7 Reason for
change
8 Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
8
9 Public within and for the State of New York,
9 No. __ Line No. __ Change
10 do hereby certify:
1 0 Reason lor
11 That YIGAL COHEN HAREL, the
11
change:
12 witness whose deposition is hereinbefore set
12 Page No. __ Line No. __ Change
to:
13 forth, was duly sworn by me and that such
13 Reason l or
change:
14 deposition is a true record of the testimony
14
15 given by the witness.
15 Page No. __
to:
Line No. __Change
16 I further certify that I am
16 Reason lor
17 not related to any of the parties to this
17
change:
18 action by blood or marriage, and that I am
18 Page No. __ Line No. __ Change
to:
19 in no way interested in the outcome of this
19 Reason for
20 matter.
20
change:
21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
21 ,:age No. __ Line No. __ Change
22
hereunto
22 Reason lor
change:
23
April2013. . "
23
24
/J(/ '
24 SIGNATURE: DATE
---
YIGAL COHEN HAREL
25 ADRIENNE M. MIGNANO
25
1
Page 185
1
Page 187
2 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 2 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET
3 Our Assignment No. 334221 3
Page No. __ Line No. __Change
4 Case Caption: YIGAL COHEN HAREL, et al. 4 to:
Reason l or
5 vs. 5 change:
6 KK INTERNATIONAL TRADING 6
CORP. et al. Page No. __ Line No. __ Change
7 7 to:
Reason lor
8 DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY 8 change
9 9
I declare under penalty of perjury Page No. __ Line No. __Change
10 10 to:
that I have read the entire transcript Reason for
11 11 change:
12
of my deposition taken in the captioned
12
matter or the same has been read to me, Page No. __
13 13 to:
Line No. __ Change
and the same is true and accurate, save Reason l or
14 14 change:
15
and except for changes and/or corrections,
15
16
if any, as indicated by me on the Page No. __ Line No. __Change
16 to:
DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET hereof, with the Reason or
17 17 change;
understanding that I offer these changes
18 18
as if still under oath.
19
No. __ Line No. __ Change

19
Reason for
20 20 change:
SIGNATURE DATE:
21 YIGAl COHEN HAREL 21
Page No. __ Line No. __Change
22 22 to:
Reason lor
23 Subscribed and sworn to on the _day of 23 change:
, 20_ before me,
24 24
Notary Public, SIGNATURE: DATE;
---
25 in and for the State of 25 YIGAL COHEN HAREL

4527 BAREL 000845
EXHIBIT 6
KGM0000566
KGM0000567
KGM0000568
KGM0000569
i l
I I
KGM0000570
KGM0000571
KGM0000572
KGM0000573
KGM0000574
KGM0000575
KGM0000576
KGM0000577
KGM0000578
KGM0000579
KGM0000580
KGM0000581
KGM0000582
KGM0000583
KGM0000584
;I I
KGM0000585
KGM0000586
KGM0000587
KGM0000588
KGM0000589
KGM0000590
KGM0000591
KGM0000592
KGM0000593
KGM0000594
KGM0000595
\. I
KGM0000596
KGM0000597
KGM0000598
KGM0000599
KGM0000600
KGM0000601
KGM0000602
KGM0000603
KGM0000604
KGM0000605
KGM0000606
KGM0000607
KGM0000608
KGM0000609
KGM0000610
KGM0000611
EXHIBIT 7


21934/043/1396979.4


INTEGRAL LOGISTICS, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company,
Plaintiffs,

v.

K.K. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP.,
K.K. INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al.

Defendants.

Civil Action No: 1:12-cv-04527-BMC

DECLARATION OF YIGAL COHEN HAREL
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, YIGAL COHEN HAREL, declare the following:
1. I am a plaintiff in the above captioned case. This declaration is in support of
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. If called upon as a witness, I can testify as to the
facts set forth herein.
2. I am a Florida resident living in Weston, Florida.
3. Integral Logistics, LLC (Integral) is an LLC in the State of Florida. Integral,
founded in 2003, is an importer and distributer of smoking accessories, including lighters.
4. I am a founder, owner and consultant to Integral and was formerly its President.
5. I have a degree in electrical engineering from the ORT Braude Academic College
of Engineering in Israel. I have been in the lighter and smoking accessories business for over 25
years. Prior to founding Integral, I owned several other lighter companies abroad, for which I
was the designer of dozens of lighters. As an innovator in the field of the design of lighters, I
have been named an inventor on over two dozen United States design patents for lighters.

2

21934/043/1396979.4
6. I am the sole owner and sole inventor of United States Patent No. D501,274 (the
274 Patent) entitled Lighter, which issued on January 24, 2005.
7. I have licensed rights to the 274 Patent to two different entities. For several
years, until 2008, both Blazer Products, Inc. (Blazer) and Integral were concurrently non-
exclusive licensees of the 274 Patent.
8. Blazer has previously sold a lighter insert marketed as the Z-plus! under its
license. Integral is currently a licensee of the 274 Patent. Since 2004, Integral distributes and
sells a lighter insert marketed as the Z-plus! under its license. The Z-plus! sold by Blazer and the
Z-plus! sold by Integral were the same lighter insert and shared the same design.
9. The design of the Z-plus! is an embodiment of the design claimed in the 274
Patent.
10. The first sale of a lighter using the patented design was from Integral to Blazer in
May 2004 of the Z-plus! lighter.
11. More recently, Integral has sold other lighter inserts which also use the patented
design, both as lighter inserts and lighters already inserted into cases.
12. The Z-plus! lighter is sometime referred to as a lighter insert. In the lighter
business, the term lighter insert refers to a functionally complete lighter that is intended for use
in a lighter case.
13. Integrals Z-plus! and other lighters sold by Integral that use the patented design
are sized to fit in lighter cases, including Integral lighter cases, Zippo lighter cases, and other
third-party lighter cases.
14. Integral sells its lighters to brick and mortar retailers and online retailers. Integral
does not sell directly to consumers.
15. I first became aware that Defendant KK International was using my patented
design in 2012 and brought this suit shortly thereafter to protect my rights.


3

21934/043/1396979.4

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: Weston, Florida
June 12, 2012
By: ____ ___ --------=- __ _
Yigal Cohen Harel
EXHIBIT 8
KGM0000048
KGM0000049
KGM0000050
KGM0000051
KGM0000052
KGM0000053
KGM0000054
Sassy in style, fantastic in function

KGM0000055
KGM0000056
KGM0000057
KGM0000058
EXHIBIT 9
March 3, 1936. G. GIMERA ET AL
POCKET LIGHTER
Filed May 17, 1934
9
V'"
2,032,695
. '\./ 'r .:/.8
ATTOIUIE.Y.S
KGM0000001
Patented Mar. 3, 1936
2,032,695
UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE
2,032,695
POCKET LIGHTER
George Gimera. and George G. Blaisdell, Brad-
ford, Pa., assignors to Zippo Manufacturing
Company, Bradford, Pa., a partnership con-
sisting of. George G. Blaisdell, W. G. Blaisdell,
Frank W. Calkins, George Gimera, and George
B. Morris
Ap;lication May 17, 1934, Serial No. 726,022
1 Claim. ({)I. 67-7.1)
This invention relates to pocket lighters of the
hingelf"cover type.
Popket lighters having covers hinged on their
endsmust have means for holding them
:; closed if they are to be satisfactory. and it is
also desirable that they have means for prevent-
Ing the covers from closing prematurely and ex-
tinguishing the flame after they are opened. In
lighters known heretofore these means take the
1 J form qf exposed latches and mterlor springs and
levers which take up space in the lighters and
reduce their storage capacity for inflammable
lighter fluid. Furthermore, the exposed latches
are apt to catch in and W'.!ar the clothing, to be
1.} accidentally actuated in the pocket, and to ac-
cumUlate dirt. Such lighters are complex and
frequently get out of order, while they must be
constructed in a cheap manner in order to be
salable at a low price.
It is among the objects of this invention to
provide a pocket lighter having a minimum of
projections from its closed case, and In which
movement of the cover from either its fUlly open
or its fUlly closed position is restrained by sim-
ple means concealed when the lighter is closed.
Further objects are to provide such a lighter
having large storage capacity for lighter fuel,
which is easy to fill, is strong and durable, and is
simple in design and construction with a mlni-
:;o mum of moving parts.
The preferred embodiment of the invention is
illustrated in the accompanying drawing,.of which
Figs. 1, 2 and 3 are, respectively, perspective, side
and top views with the cover open; Fig, 4 is a
:;;; central vertical section through the lighter with
its cover closed; and Fig. 5 is a side view with the
cover closed.
Referring to the drawing, a casing 1s provided
consisting of two telescopically disposed hollow
-10 members, the inner member I being substantially
coextensive with the outer member 2 and having
a very snug slld1ng :tlt therewith. The outer
member is closed at its lower end. A top plate 3
closes the upper end of Inner member I, which
.;;; is preferably formed from a section of seamless
tubing. This forms In the casing a reservoir for
inflammable lighter fuel, such as gasoline, which
is carried by a stuffing of saturated cotton waste.
The upper edges of the side walls of the inner
;,o member are provided with upright integral exten-
sions, the central portion 4 of each having its
sides curved inward over the top plate toward
the opposite extension to form a generally ell1pti-
cal wind screen in which a plurality of draft
55 openings 8 a..re PIPlPhe4 1 an4 3),
curved sides are likewise provided With integral
extensions or lugs 1 and 8 disposed in pairs at
the front and rear, respectively; o;f the wind
screen, the lugs of each pair being disposed in
spaced parallel relation longitudinally of top
5
plate 3.
In the front pair of lugs 1 there is journalled
a toothed wheel 9 which engages the upper end
of an elongate flint II slidably disposed in an
opening through top plate 3. The flint is con-
10
stantly held in frictional engagement with the
toothed wheel by a coil spring 12 (Fig. 4) com-
pressed between the bottom of the flint and a
set screw 13 threaded in the lower end of a tube
14 depending from top plate 3. The toothed
15
wheel is adapted to throw sparks, when rotated
by the thumb, from the flint to a wick 16 sur-
rounded by the wind screen and projecting into
the fuel reservoir through a hole in top plate 3.
In order to protect the projections at the top 20
of the casing, as wen as the clothing, the casing is
provided with a cover 18 which is connected at
its rear wall to the rear wall of outer telescop-
ing member 2 by means of a small hinge 19. As
will be observed in Fig. 5 of the drawing, there 26
are no projections from the lighter other than
this hinge when the cover is closed. However,
as it is desirable that the cover remain closed ex-
cept when the operator opens it, means is pro-
vided for accomplishing this object without ex- 30
posing anything which might catch in and wear
the pocket or be accidentally actuated.
Accordingly, a lever 21 is pivotally mounted
at one end between the rear pair of lugs 8 so
that it can be swung from an upright position, 35
as shown in Fig. 4, to a substantially horizontal
position, as shown in Fig. 2, and vice versa.
The lever resists movement from both its up-
right and horizontal position because its pivot-
ed end is provided with a laterally projecting 40
toe portion 22 which must depress a spring-bi
ased plunger 23, slidably disposed in an opening
through top plate 3, as the lever moves from one
of said positions to the other. The 24,
which biases the plunger against the pivoted end 45
of the lever radially of its pivot axis, is com-
pressed between the bott<;:n of the plunger and
the lower end of a closed tube 26 secured in the
Inner telescoping member I. When the lever is
substantially upright the pressure of the plunger 50
against the under side of toe 22 biases the lever
toward the wind screen (Fig. 4).
When the cover is closed it Is held in that po-
. sition by the upright lever bearing against the
;reg.r .slde of a cross member 21 secured in the 55
KGM0000002
2 2,0S2,691S
cover transversely thereof. adjacent its rear wall
<Fig. 4) . As the cover is swung o]:.en by the
thumb, cross member 21 swings the lever back-
ward and downward, toe 22 depressing the plung-
5 er against the resistance of spring 24 as the toe
slides over the plunger. Continued movement
of the lever causes the end of the' toe to slip oft
the plunger, whereupon the latter quickly rises
and snaps the lever horizontal position, as
10 shown in Fig. 2, the outer end of the lever snap-
ping against the rear wall of the cover which
is thereby thrown wide open.
Self-closing or premature closing of the cover
is prevented by this rear wall striking the end o!
Hi the lever whose upward and forward movement
the plunger and toe 22 cooperate in restraining.
However, the cover is easily closed by the opera-
tor by applying sufficient pressure to it to cause
the toe to overcome the resistance of spring 24
20 wlien . the lever is swung upward by the rear
wan of the cover. Once again, as the end of the
toe slips off the plunger the latter is forced up-
ward against the under side of the toe and snaps
the lever against cross member 21 which causes
the cover to swing shut (Fig. 4).
Besides being a lighter which has a cover op-
erated In the above-described manner with no
parts projecting beyond the closed case except
a hinge, it has a larger storage capacity for
ao lighter fuel than lighters now known having the
same over-all area that this one has. Unob-
structed access to the fuel reservoir is readily
gained by merely grasping the wind screen and
pulling the two telescoping, members apart.
:l.J There are no screw plugs to remove or become
lost. nor small openings through which to at-
tempt to Introduce the lighter fuel. The snug
sliding fit of the telescoping members insures a
leaf-proof reservoir.
49 The projections on top of the inner member I
are strong and well constructed, because the
wind screen and the wheel-supporting and lever-
supporting lugs are all with the inner
member, and not separate parts soldered in place
and apt to break oft. This Integral structure
also simplifies the manufacture of the lighter and
decreases its cost. Finally, this lighter is pro-
vided with a minimum of moving parts, thereby 5
obviating the pos.sibility of its getting out of
order.
According to the provisions of the patent
statutes, we have explained the principle and
operation of our invention, and have iiiustrated 10
and described what we now consider to 1epresent
its best embodiment. However, we desire to have
it understood that, within the scope o! the ap-
pended claim, the invention may be practiced
otherwise than as specifically illustrated and lil
described.
We claim:
A pocket lighter comprising a hollow member
having a closed bottom and an open top, a sec-
ond hollow member telescoped therein, and hav- 20
ing an open bottom, a plate permanently clos-
ing the top of the Inner member whereby a res-
ervoir for inflammable fuel is fanned, the side
walls of the inner member projecting above said
plate and being formed to provide a wind screen .:;:;
and front and rear pairs of lugs, a cover d!spos,ed
. over the tops of said telescoping members and
hinged at its rear wall to the outer of said
bers, a cross member secured in the cover trans-
versely thereof adjacent said rear wall, a )ever :.:o
pivotally mounted at one end between said rear
pair of lugs with its opposite end projecting up
between said rear wall and cross member and
engaging the latter, a spring biased plunger slid-
ably disposed in said top plate for biasing the 3;:;
against the cross member, whereby move-
ment of the cover from its closed position is re-
strained, and a flint-engaging toothed wheel piv-
otally mounted between said front pair of lugs,
the lighter being free of external latch-manipu- 40
latlng means.
GEORGE GIMERA.
GEORGE G. BLAISDELL.
KGM0000003
EXHIBIT 10
Aug. 1, 1950
L FLICKINGER ET AL
PYROPHORIC LIGHTER
Filed Oct. 12, 1948
6
2,517,191

-
INVENTORS.
LESTER FLICKINGER&
GEORGE G. BL.,.q.ISOL.L.
BY

I . I
their
STTORNEYS.
KGM0000004
Patented Aug. 1, 1950
'.
UNITE ..D sTATES
l
2,51TI,19!t
PYROPHORIC J,IGH'l'ER
Flickinger and George G.:BlaiS:ifeiJ;. Brad- .
l'olld,. Pa-., assignors to Zippo: Manuf-acturing .
Company,Bradford; a;.corporiLtion of P.enn, . .. .
sylvania
Applicaiion Octol:ier 12, freria;INo. '54:;0'64
5:Claims; <CI.
2.
2,517,191
.. ,--
:.:,.'
_.;.'
This invention relates ta. pyrophorie: lighters Referring to Fig. l of :tb.e: draw.ings, the lighter
and, in: particular to lighters which aTe. ignited there. used. to illustrate the invention includes
by sparks. thrawn:.from a outer and inner telescoped casings I and 2,.the
A widely-used: lighter of a: type for which. the outer casing being: hinged at 3 to provide.a;.cover,
impro:vements:.of. this.invention are: particulall'ly 5 and special: means; umelated: to, this. invention,
sUitable is that disclosed in: United S1Jates. Patent arec provil!l.ed to; hold the. cover in an. open o.t a
which shows, generallY';. the eori:struc- tightly closed: P.Osition. Casing: 2. ;haos a. wind .
tion: of the. well known "Zippo" This is a screen 6 formed on its; top wall,. thls. easing. noli-
poeket. lighter with telescoping' outer and. inner mally beillg;filled- wJ:th a cetton,.waste;. or the li:ke,
hollow casings, the inner casing carcyingr a ver- .11) whrch is kept satUl'alted with au in:f!amm.able
treal f!lnt'-receiving- tube, a;, wick and a. packing lig)lter fluid; Alscr; .. within: llhls iniler:ca'Sing.is
ofcotton-waste;.orthelike;satilratedwithJighter a wick l that extends upint0the;wind
fluid'. Tlie flint is m:ge'd upw.ardly in, the . tube screen.
into engagement:with a rotatable, toathed:wheel; The improvements of. the invention are con,
which, when mtated, .throws: sparks, that ignite 1'5 cerned solely with the flint-holding member
the;wicJi:. which, as.shown, is a vertical.tube il mounted
It has been found. that the. flint. tube o:ll such. a in the inner casing. Customarily, this tube is
lighter m:ust be formed' of. a corrosion-resisting formed of a non-ferrous, corros.ion-reststirig
non-ferrous metal such as brass, copper,. etc.,. sG metal, such. as brass; so. that any. moisture from
that any dampness present. in the atmosphere 20 .the atmosphere which may. find . .its way into. the
will' not' rust its interior and either prevent in- casing will not corrode it. A flint 9 is slidably
sertion of a flint or. bind the flint scre\lr which, mounted. withiri the tube and a sprfug U is. pro-
normally, closes the lower end of the tube. How- vided wl'lich presses the flint upwardly out .of. the
ever, the use of such materia:I gives rise to one tubeagamstatoothedwheell2-rotatab1Yli:lounted
rather serious difficultY, thiS being .that the ma- 25 on.a horizontal axis above the top:oftube:B: The
terial is so soft that pressure exertedby the flint bottom ofthe-tube is dosed by a smallbrass ..screw
on the tube when the spark-throwing wheel is .13 against:. which spring ll presses and the lighter
. rotated soon files or mashes the upper end of the is. operated: in the custOmary manner by rotating
1iube and produces an oval shape, Such; a, shape toothedwheeH2so.asto,tln:owthesparksagailist
then allows the :!:lint. tO rock ooJcli: and: f@rth so 30 the upper imd of; saturated wick: T; thereby jgnit-
that, frequently, the flint binds the wheel and . ing the wick or the vapor in it.
makes further rotation of . the spark-throwing As is well known, flint is quite a hard. substance,
wheel difficult or and, in fact, is so hard as compared with the cor-
It is therefore an object of this invention to . metal of which the tube is formed
provide a simple, inexpensive and effective man- 35 that any movements of the flint within the. tube
ner of preventing such flint-produced, wheel- are capable .of distorting. the circular, cross-sec-
binding distortions of a corrosion-resisting flint- tional shape of the tube. such movements of the
holding tube. . flint are set up when sparking wheel 12 is rotated,
. According to the invention, such an object is this rotation causing an upward and downward
achieved by fitting a hard metal bushing into the 40 movement of the flint which files and mashes the
upper end of the distortable flint-holding tube. tube and eventually changes it .from a circular
Preferably, the body of the bushing is formed of to an oval shape so that it Is permitted to rock
a rlgid or hard steel which is plated, or otherwise back and forth. As a consequence, the flint often
covered, with a rust-resisting material, such as is rocked into a position which binds sparking
zinc. The flint lies within. this bushing, and the 45 wheel.l2 and renders its rotation extremely dif-
hardness of the bushing is sufficient to. prevent it, :ficult or impossible.
or the tube, from beirig distOrted by .flint wheel According to tl::iis invention means are provided
pressures acting on the flint. . . to prevent this distortion and continuolliily to al-
The preferred embodiment of the invention is low easy: rotation of the sparking wheel, such
illustrated in the accompanying .drawings of 50 means being a bushing 14, shown in Fig. 2. This
which Fig. 1 is a vertical section through a com- bushing is sized to fit into the upper end of tube
moil type of lighter provided with the improve- 8 and, for this purpose, the tube's upper end is
ment of this invention; and Fig. 2 an enlarged counterbored for a distance approximately equal
perspective view of the above-mentioned push-' to the lenith of the bushing. Also, to facilitate
ing. 55 t4e placing of the btishing in the tube it is pref-
KGM0000005
\ :-. .
2,517,191
3
erable to use a split bushing which can be pressed
together for insertion. In order to prevent dis-
tortion of the bushing and the tube by the flint,
the tube is formed of a metal which approximates
the hardness of the flint, this, most suitably, being 5
a hard steel. Also, it is recognized that there is
a possibility of the bushing itself so rusting or
corroding as to prevent a flint from fitting into
4
in the operation of the lighter, the outer end of
said bushing being substantially flush with the
outer end of said tube.
3. A flint-receiving tube for use in a pyrophoric
lighter, said tube comprising an elongate tubular
member formed of a non-ferrous distortable
metal; and a split steel .bushing, said tubular
member .being counterbored at one end and said
bushing being plated with a corrosion-resisting
material and being fitted closely into said coun-
terbore to strengthen the tube against deforma-
tion in the operation of the lighter.
4. In a pyrophoric lighter comprising a casing
having a top wall provided with an opening for
it, and accordingly, it is desirable to plate the
bushing with a corrosion-resisting material, such 10
as zinc, or to form it of corrosion-resisting steel,
such as stainless steel which contains 18 .per
cent of chromium and 8 per cent nickel. As a re-
sult of this simple, but effective, manne;r' of avoid-
ing tube distortion, the sparking wheels of such
lighters do not become bound and the extreme
annoyance of such a bound wheel is completely
eliminated. While the invention has been illus-
trated by the particular type of lighter describe.d,
15 the top of a: flint--recEiving tube and having a
rotatably mounted sparking wheel disposed ad-
jacent to said opening, a flint-receiving tube
formed of a non-ferrous readily distortable metal
it will be understood that it is equally suitable for 20
use iii any lighter that has.ftint-receiving tubes
Jormed of distortable, corrosion-resistilig mate-
rial.. . .
According to the provisions of the patent stat-
utes; we have explained the principle of our In- 25
venticirt .. andhave illustrated and described what
we now consider to represent its best embodi-
ment. However, we desireto have it understood
that, within the scope of the appended clairris,
the invention may be practiced otherwise than 30
as specifically mustrated and described.
We claim:
l.. A flint-receiving tube :fo:r use .in a pyrophoric
lighter, saiel tube compri;,ing an. elongate tubular
member formed of a non-ferrous 1 .. eaclily dis- 35
tortable metal. and a bushing formRd 'of a hard
metal, said tubnhr member .b0ing counkrbored
at one end, m:id said bushing fitting clo:;ciy b1to
said counterbore to stn:m[,then the tube against
deformation in the operation of the lighter, the '40
outer' end of saicl bushing be.inr.; stibstantially
flush with the outer end of said tube.
having its upper end extending into said opening
and attached to said wan, the upper end of said
tube being counter bored, and a rigid steel bush-
ing fitted closely in said counter bore to strengthen
the upper end of said tube against deformation
by the action of the flint wheel upon flint:in the
tube, the, outer end of said bushing being sub-
stanti9Jly flush with the outer end of said tube,
5. In a pyrophoric 1ighter comprising a casing
having a top wan provided with an opening for
the top of a flint-receiving tube and .having: a
rotatably mounted. sparking wheel disposed ad"
jacent. to said . opening, a flint-receiving tube
formed of a distortable metal hav,
ing its upper end extending into said opening
and attached to said wall, the upper end of said
tube being counterbored, and a rigid steel bush-
ing fitted closely in said cou.nterbore, said
ing .being plated with a corrosion-resisting ma-
terfal and -being fitted closely into said counter:,;
bore.
LESTER FLICKINGER.
GEORGE G. BLAISDELL.
2. A flint-receiving tube for use in a pyrophoric REFER-ENCES CITED
lighter, said tube comprising an elongate tubular The following refe!'ences are of record. in :the
member formed of a readily distortable non- <{5 file of this patent: . ' < :.'
ferrous me_tal, and a_ _formed of a UNITED STATES PATENTS
metal havmg corroswn-resrstmg surfaces, said ;.:
tubular member being counter-bored at .one end, Nmnber Name Date
:and said bushing fitting closely into said counter- 2,011,322 Loehr _..; ___________ Aug. 13, 1935
bore to strengthen the tube against deformation 50 2,418,295 Florman Apr. 1, 1947
KGM0000006
EXHIBIT 11
April 26, 1966
H.C.GOOBE
3,247,688
CIGARETTE LIGHTERS
Filed Jan. 27, 1964
\
'
'
..
_;=;=.="J?o=EJ
1 '1.9.1. l.Jo

'<:::"' ...,5 \,

.mr-------m \\
'
_).
KGM0000007
United States Patent Office.
3,247,688
Patented Ap!r. 26, 1966
1
3,247,6&8
CIGARETTE LIGHTERS
Hampton C. _Godbe, Salt Lake City, Utah; assignor to
Cainpany, Salt Lake City,
Utah; a limited partnership
Filed. Jan. 27, 1964, Scr. No. 340,388
SCiaims. (CJ. 67-7.1)
This invention relates to cigarette lighters and is di-
rected to means for facilitating the use of such lighters,
particularly .in the matter of replacement, or replenish-
ment, of 'ihe fuel supply, and incidentally of the flint
supply, and is in this latter complemental to the
invention: of: tile present applicant, Hampton C. Godbe,
jointly with.J ohrr. G. :Y...addas, entitled Flint Cartridge and
.Flints and Jllint Feeding-Mechanism for Cigarette Light-
ers and the Like, covered by application for pa_tent filed
.February 8, 1963, Serial No; 257,270, now Patent No.
3,233;433, granted February 8, 1966.
The. primary object-of the invention is to provide ciga-
rette lighters which incorporate extremely simple means
for expeditious replacement, or replenishment, of the fuel
.supply, and at the.same time incorporate many other .new
and useful advantages, including means which will serve
to warn the. user of the lighter when the fuel supply is
running low.
Conventionally designed cigarette lighters are a nui-
, sance to refill with lighter fluid. Many. of then-i have fuel
reservoirs sealed by a gasketed screw-threaded plug which,
when removed, leaves only .a small opening into which
fuel may be injected. Fuel injection frorna conventional
spouted fuel can is therefore vexatious and laborious, and
in any lighter the user, in adding fuel, usually either
. underfills the reservoir and hence must refuel oftener
than should actually be necessary, or else injects too much
fuel in which event the wick, .flint and. striker wheel usually
be_come flooded and functimially inoperative u_ntil dried
out.
Another object of the invention is, therefore, to pro-
vide a cigarette lighter in which the fuel is supplied from
an interchangeable, discardable fuel canister type of
2
tion of fuel in the main compartment, which contains the
wick, he may replenish such supply by rupture of the
septum to thus permit the fuel in the auxiliary compart-
ment to flow into the main compartment, thereby main-
5 taining the lighter in operative condition until a fresh
canister can be .installed.
Moreover, in all liquid-fueled cigarette lighters the
wick tends to become scorched and charred during use,
and hence musfbe trimmed from time to time 'to afford
10 proper lighting, and eventually the wick becomes so
-shortened from trimming that it must be replaced. As
.anyone knows who has attempted the task, wick replace-
ment is slow, fussy and frustrating. A further object of
. the invention: is, therefore, to provide a wick fueling sys-
15 tern whereby the need of wick trimming is eliminated,
and: whereby wick .replacement by currently conventional
means also is eliminated, since the user receives a clean;
White,. -factory-fresh wick of correct length with every
change of fmil canister.
20 Related to the ease. of maintenance of the lighter in
operating condition by thl;l substitution of fresh fuel canis-
ters for exhausted ones, the lighter case or body is so
constructed that canister substitution may be accomplished
with a minimum of effoit, 'and tci this.end another object
25 of the invention is to provide means in the lighter case or
body which enable the user to so open the. case or body
as to pem1it an exhausted canister to drop out and to be
replaced by a fresh canister.
Still another object of the invention is to. so form the
30 canisters that they will be free of contact with parts of
the lighter disposed interiorly of the lighter case or body
to thereby further facilitate their installation and removal.
.. With .these and other objects in view, as will appear
from the following description, the invention comprises
35 a cigarette lighter or the like having a case or body carry-
ing the more or less conventional spark producing mecha-
nisms and serving to receive and enclose a fuel canister,
such canister being insertable into and removable from
the case or: body as a unitary element and preferably. be-
40 ing divided by a rupturable septum to provide a main
compartment and an au.Xiliary compartment, with the
main compartment preferably supplied with a wick for
juxtaposition to the spark pro_ducing mechanism, and
. reservoir operatively disposed within the lighter body and
,containing a. wick extending down into the fuel, and
which, at the factory, has been charged with precisely the
correct amount of fuel, or fuel-saturated absorbent mate- 4fi
rial; and is ready for use by insertion within the lighter.
body after-removal of a small exterior cap or cover which
serves to prevent evaporative losses through the wick
. prior to such insertion. This completely eliminates the
inconvenience of conventional fuel refilling and provides
a cigarette lighter. with means for almost instantaneous
replacement of an emptied, exhausted, f11e! canister with
means associated with the septum for effecting rupture
thereof at the will.of the user in .order to establish com-
munication. :between the two compartments for flow of
fuel from the auxiliary compartment to the main com-
partment, the canister preferably being constructed of a
pliable material, such as a pliable plastic, and, if desired
a fresh one.
. In the majority Of cigarette lighters CUrrently in use,
the user has little, if aw, forewarning of the final deple-
tion of the fuel supply. Thus, when exhaustion of fuel
occurs, the lighter becomes inoperative until refilled and,
as hereinbefore noted, a further object of the invention
is to provide a simple, practical and effective means for
warning the user that the fuel supply is running low, such
warning means being factory-built into the fuel canisters .
. B;ence, upon receiving the warnirig, the user may con-
tinue to operate the lighter satisfactorily for a limited
. time until he has opportunity for canister. replacement.
Having in mihd the problem of fnel depletion, and the
aforementioned canister form of fuel supply means; a
. still further object of the inventio11 is to provide canister"
.form fuel containers having- .at least two fuel compart-
ml!nts, narn.ely.a main fuel compartment and an auxiliary
fuel compartment, the fm:mer . of which is of greater
capacity than the latter, which are divided by a ruptural?le
septum, so that wh_en the user is apprised cif near e.xhaus-
50 a transparent, pliable plastic, in order to enable the user
-to so distort its portions adjacent to the septum as to rup-
ture the septum, or to see the quantity of fuel in the canis-
ter, particularly in the auxiliary compartment, before rup-
ture of the sepl:\lm; and the invention comprises, also, de-
55 tails of construction of the lighter case or body and its
operative adjuncts and of the canister, whereby insertion
and removal of canisters for replenishment, either. par-
tially cir fully, of the fuel supply, may be accomplished
with a minimum of effort, all as will be explained herein-
60 after more fully and finally clairiled.
In the accompanying drawing illustrating the invention,
in the several figures of which like parts are similarly
designated,
FIG. 1 is a side elevation of a cigarette lighter with the
65 lid or cover raised, embodying certain features of the in-
vention and adapted to receive the fuel canisters which
comprise the dominant feature thereof,
FIG. 2 is. a sectional elevation of a lighter of the type
shawn .in FIG. 1, and illustrating the cooperating elements
70 of fuel canister, striker or spark producing.mechanism and
one preferred. form of flint feeding mechanism, and a
body dosing panel,
KGM0000008
3,247,688
3
FIG. 3 is a lop plan view of an optional form of remov-
able, replaceable, unitary combination of flint f e e ~ n g
mechanism, striker mechanism and wind guard, wh1ch
makes possible substitution of a new one for a used one in
order to maintain effective. functioning of the lighter,
FIG. 4 is a bottom plan view of the lighter body shown
in FIGS. 1 and 2, and illustrating the form and operation
of the body closing panel,'
FIG. 5 is a fragmentary detail showing, in sectional ele-
vation, a modified form of body closing plate.or panel,
FIG. 6 is a view similar to FIG. 5 but showing another
modification of the body closing plate or panel,
FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view of the fuel canister shown
in FIG. 2,
4
mechanism and windguard shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3,
the windguard 241 is formed integrally with a plate 21 and
is provided with a rear channel 22 and front supporting
arms 23 on which latter is mounted the rotatable striker
5 wheel 24. The windguard 20 is pierced by distinctive star-
shaped vent apertures 25 and within the confines of the
windguard the plate 21 is provided with a bore 26 of a
diameter to mate with the aperture 12, and to fit snugly
over the stabilizing collar or ring 13 when the same is
10
employed. The front end of the plate 21 is provided
with a notch 21' (FIG. 3) for seating engagement against
the latch member 17, and its rear end abuts against the
hinged edge of the lid 14 to thus hold the plate aligned
with the top wall16 of the case or body 1.
FIG. 8 is a schematic, reduced scale, sectional side ele- 15
vation of one form of fuel canister embodying the features
Permanently affixed to the plate 21, and accommodated
in a receiving bore therein are the flint feeding means
including a flint 27, a feed tube 28 having a helical slot
29, a traveling pressure-applying follower 30 within the
tube 28 and having lugs 31 engaging the slot 29 thereof, a
of the invention,
FIG: 9 is a transverse sectional elevation taken on the
line 9-9 of FIG. 8,
FIG. 10 is a view similar to FIG. 8 but showing another
form of fuel canister,
FIG. 11 is a transverse sectional elevation taken on the
line 11-11 of FIG. 10,
FIG. 12 is a bottom plan view of the canister shown in
FIG. 10 with parts shown in section on the line 12--12
of FIG. 10,
FIG. 13 is a view similar to FIG. 8 but showing still
another form of canister,
FIG. 14 is a transverse sectional elevation taken on the
line 14-14 of FIG. 13,
FIG. 15 is an enlarged fragmentary sectional elevation
showing the provision of one form of metal ferrule in the
top wall of a canister for embracing engagement with the
wick and serving to guard against heat-injury to the
canister when the latter is made of non-heat-resisting
plastic material,
FIG. 16 is a top plan view of the parts shown in FIG.
15, and
FIG. 17 is a view similar to FIG. 15 but showing an-
other form of metal ferrule.
As shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 4, the case or body 1 of
the lighter is hollow, and has a bottom opening 2 closed
by a slidably mounted panel 3 traveling in grooves 4 at
20 pressure spring (not shown) between the flint and fol-
lower, and a guide tube 32 having a longitudinal slot 33
with which the lugs 31 engage, all as more fully disclosed
in application Serial No. 257,270, hereinbefore referred
to, and in the -companion application of the present appli-
25 cant, :filed January 27, 1964, Serial No. 340,448, entitled
Flint Cartridge.
30
The operating bead 34 of the follower 31J is, preferably,
made square, or non-circular, or may be knurled, for
reasons to be given later herein.
As shown in FIGS. 2, 4, 5 and 6, either the panel 3 or
the plate 3', or 3", may be provided with an aperture 34'
coaxial with -the bead 34 of the flint cartridge for inser-
tion of a coin or other turning implement.
The guide tube 32 is provided in its wall with diamet-
35 rieally opposite pairs of slits which form between them
outwardly bowed resilient friction fingers 32' for engage-
ment with .the cylinder 11 (FIG. 2) so that the combined
striker mechanism, flint feeding mechanism and wind-
guard may be detachably held in assembly with the case
40 or body 1.
the lower extremity of the walls of the case or body 1.
Stops 5 and 6 at opposite ends of the grooves 4 cooper- 45
ate with ears 7 and ll on the :panel 3 to limit'its opening
and dosing movemel)ts (FIG. 4) and a notch 9 in the
panel serves to provide a finger grip.
The wick receiving bore 26 within the windguaTd 20
(FIGS. 2 and 3) is adapted to removably receive the
wick-enclosing neck of the removable, replaceable fuel
container or canister now to be described.
This container is preferably a pliable, flexible, hollow-
bodied plasti<: canister 35 (FIGS. 2 and 8 to 17) pro-
vided with a septum 36 to form a main compartment or
reservoir 37 and an auxiliary compartment or sub-
reservoir 38. The canister 35 is sealed liquid or gas Alternatively, the case or body !'may be provided with
a removable bottom plate 3' ( FIG. 5) secured in place 50 tight (except for the wick-enclosing.neck 39 from which
the wick 40 extends into the main compartment 37) and
is provided with a hollow channel 41, ultimately to ac-
commodate the guide tube 32 (FIG. 2) and the flint feed-
by spring catch means 4' having dimples 5' which detach-
ably engage bosses 6' provided in the walls of the case or
;body 1 adjacent to their: lower ends, and the end of the
bottom plate 3' is preferably notched, as at 7' for inser-
tion of a finger nail, or appropriate implement, to aid in 55
disengagement of the plate from the case or body; or the
bottom plate 3" (FIG. 6) may have a compression fit
within the perimeter of the body walls, but be removable
therefrom at will by leverage exerted in a flint-adjusting
access aperture therein later to be described.
ing mechanism enclosed thereby.
The neck 39, which is preferably metallic in order to
withstand the heat of the wick flame, may be affixed to
the canister (FIGS. 15 and 16) by means of a serrated
flange 42 embedded, liquid-tight, in the top wall of the
canister, or (FIG. 17) by an upset skirt 42' and, in either
60 form, bas at its top a beveled or frustoconical flange 43
(FIGS. 15 and 16) or 43' (FIG. 17) for ultimate co-
operative association with the snuffer 16 when the lid or
cover 14 is closed.
The otherwise solid top wall 10 of the case or body 1
(FIG. 2) carries an inwardly projecting cylinder 11 which
may be affixed to the top wall 10 by welding or may be
integral therewith, and it is provided, also, with a wick
receiving aperture 12 which may, if desired, be provided
with an outwardly extending concentric collar or stabiliz-
ing ring 13.
The cover or lid 14 is hinged at 15 to the case or body 1
and contains within it a snuffer 16. The lid 14 is held
in closed condition by a springy steel latch member 17
attached to the case or body wall and having a dimple IS
engaging a matching boss 19 on the inside of the lid, and
the lid may be flipped open by simple upward pressure of
the users thumb, as is customary.
In the optional form of striker mechanism, flint feeding
The beveled, or frusto-conical flange 43, or 43', on the
65 wick-enolosing neck 39 of the canister which serves to
insure its snug fit within the snuffer 16 of the cover or
lid 14 when the cover or lid is closed, aids in retarding
fuel evaporation, and the presence of the snuffer serves
to reduce the capacity of the closed cover or lid for en-
70 trapment of fuel vapor or fumes.
Obviously, if the canister is made of a pliable, pref-
erably plastic, material which is heat and flame resistant,
the neck 39 and beveled or frusto-conical flange 43 may
be molded integrally with the body of the canister as
75 indicated, schematica.]]y, in FIG. 8. '
KGM0000009
3,247,688
5 6
The wick 40 which, as stated, extends downward in a .this plug 49 extends liquid-tight, through :the bottom wall
conventional manner into the compartment 37, may. be .of the cariister '<lnd is provided with .finger-grip means 5T
packed around with fuel-saturated absorbent material 44 by which it may. be puHed free of the septum toprovide
(FIG. 2), such as cotton, fine-ground sawdust, or similar an {)pening for escape of the fuel from compartment 3S
ifppropTiate. medium in order to supply fliet to the . 5 in{o compartment 37. When the plug 49 is thus puHed
wick 40. . . . free Its wedge-shaped end 50 will -tightly seat in the .a per-
However, if .desired, any such packing may be dis- ture in :the bottom. wall of the canister to thus seal this
pensed with, and the compartment 37 contain only the aperture against escape of fuel into the lighter body, but
liquid fuel, it being noted that the cariister, prior to in- the lower end of the plug 49 may be brokeri off when the
sertion in a lighter body, may have its exposed wick end 10 fuel in compartmimt 38 has passed -into compartment 37'
covered by a sealing cap 45 (FIG. 8) fitting tightly over so that the plug 4!J wi.Jl not obstruct replacement of the
the frusto-conical flange . 43 of the nec-k 39 and serving bottom panel or :Pla:te 3, 3' or 3'' _
to. prevent evaporation. Aiso, the lower edge of the cap All of the forms of septum-rupturing means shown,
Play be .. cemented to the top wall of the canister as a .and, as hereinbefore noted, they mu&t be considered as :rep-
further safeguard against evaporation. 15 resimtative only of preferred forms, are adapted to.
_ lf the neck.39 with its flange 43, 'or 43',is made of !ish openings in the septums of Stich extent as to obviate
solid. me'tal. (such as a casting or powdered-metal press- the creation .in the auXiliary. 38 of such a
ing), or: of .plastic .integral with the canister as above :pressure differential :as to inhibit, or measurably re;tard,
Suggested, the .sealing cap .rriay be dispensed with and in the flow of fuel therefrom, especially in rthe presence of
its place the neck may be provided with a solid extension 2.0 pressure applied by the user extericdy of the canister.
closing the canister over the wick end and adapted to be Itis thought that an underst.anding of the manrier in
, cut or snapped o:fi to expose such wick end when readied which the l:ighter may be restored to efficient operating
.for use,.much in. the mariner a:s are the tips of spouts of condition, by .n!placement of the. comhined flint, feeding
. cans on:ontainers such as those presently used. mec.hanism, mechariism and wind.guard, :and of the
for lighter fuel.. Z5 fuel canister, should either :or both of them become in-
.,: The ..bottom of the canister 35 is inwardly offset or opera five or depleted, will be apparent from the fore-
at. 46 to permit ready ac.cess to the actuating going. However, in the .interest 9 clearness, these re-
head 34 of the flint. cartridge when, if. desired or neces- placemen:t operations may be explained as follows. .
bottom :Of the body is opened by way of the Should replacement of the combined flint-feeding
panel 3 (FIGS. 2and 4), plate .3' (FIG. 5), or plate 3" 30 anism, lYtrikermechanism and windguard bedesirable, the
{FIG. 6). user will firmly grasp the windguard of the then
It will be understood that whether the compaTtrnent 37 said combination.between thumb and fingers and, by pull-
.contains a .packing material ooiot, the septum 36 which 'ing outward, separate the 'combination from the lighter
divides iUrom th:e auxiliary compartment 38 constitutes body. Then holding a replacement .combination
a gas and liquid .tight -separator making possible the 35 ly he wiH gnide the lHnt cartridge assembly housed with-
presence in the compartment 38' of an auxiliary supply 1n the guide tube 32 into and through the cylinder 11,
of liquid fuel.which may flow into the compartment 37 pressing it home firmly.so tha-t t:he friction fingers 32' of
when the septum 36 is ruptured, to thus replenish the the tube 32 will serve.iogrip the inner wall of the cylinder
supply of fuel therein in contact with the wick 40. 11, the bore 26 of the plate 21 meantime being so posi-
Moreover, the canisters will be factory-filled with fuel 40 tioned that it will mate with the neck 39 of . the fuel
in both compartments, and this is feasible for the reason can.jster, or will'fit snugly over and around the collar 13
that their bottom walls .may. be made as separate parts of ,the wick-enclosing Ueck aperture 12 when such collar
which .are cemented, or otherwise united, to the bottom is used, and the pla:te 21 will seat, .and be firmly retained,
. edges of ilie side w!clls and to the septum 36, after the fuel .against the top wall 10 of the case or body 1, all ru;
. filling has been completed.
45
shown in FIG. 2, particular-ly, and hereinbefore described,
Having reference particularly to FIGS. g to 14; it will it being noted that .upon insertion of the .guide tube 32
-be seen that there are shown a number of pTeferable, ap- into and through the cylinder 11 it will pass into and be
propriate means, although conceivably not all such confined within the hollow channel 41 of the canister,
means, for effecting rupture of the septum 36 when the except for.the head 34 which ,extends into the offset or
supply of fuel in the compartment 37 is depleted or near 50 recess 46. . . .
exhaustion, and all of these means are capable of proper This extension of the head 34 will facilitate
functioning by virtue of the yieldable nature of the walls of the flint-feeding mechanism if .such adjustment is made
of the canister. when the 1panel 3, or bottoin plate 3' or 3", is moved out
In .the embodiment in FIGS. g and 9, the of the way. Also such adjustment may be made through
septum is provided with longitudinal weakening score
55
the apePture 34' (FIGS. 2, 4 .and 5) or '34" (FIG.. 6)
.means or depressions 47, either one or a series thereof, whh the panel 3 or bottom plate 3' or 3", whichever is
which, when the walls of the canister are squeezed, will used, in closed posiCion, by .insertion .of .a coin edge, finger-
.cause rupture of the .septum particularly in that portion nail, or other appropriate implement. If is intended, more-
adjacent .to the bottom of the .canister; thus forming a slit, over, that !'he periphery of the head 34 n1ay be square, or
.Qr opening, through. which .the auxiliary supply of fuel
60
polygonal, ,rather than circular, as >hereinbefore indicated,
may fiow from the .. auxiliary compartment 38 into the or its periphery may be knurled,. in addition, or alterna-
main compartment 37. tively, to 1he kerf shown, in .order that its manipulation
In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 10 to 12, the cuter for .adjn.stment may be facilitated, these. modilications or
wall of the auxiliary compartment 3S is provided with addiH{)ns of s-tructure not being shqwn iri detail in -the
a blade-like projection 4S having a puncturing edge ad-
65
drawing as being substantial.Jy obvious in form.
jacent to, or in contact with, the septum 36 from a point . Removal of a spent fuel canister and its replacement
adjacent to its lower end to a point above its mid-porHon. with a frel>h,. full, one will be equally easy .and expedj-
.Hence, when the said outer wall of the canister is tious. By sliding open the panel 3, or removing bot-
squeezed toward the septum the projection 43 tom pla:te 3' or 3", whichever is the. spent canister
will pmicture the septum for fiow {)f fuel from .the. 70 may be dropped out a.nd and, With the lighter
partment 38 into the compartment 37. body or case inverted, afresh dropped into place,
In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 13 and 14, the sep- it being underst{)od that, prior to such .insert-ion of the
tumis :Provided adjacent to its lower end.w.ith an aperture fresh canister, the outer end of the wick will have been
having cemented, or otherwise liquid-sealed, in &t a plug exposed by of .the sealing cap 45; or ;;napping
49 having a wedge-shaped end 50. The lower end of 75 off of the end of the. neck 39, as.hereinbefore indicated.
KGM0000010
3,247,688
7
It will be noted, also, that to facilitate of the
wick end through t-he openings 12 and 26, or -through the
collar 13 when used, the end portion of the wick may be
.provided with a stiffener, such as the wire 46' shown in
FIGS. 15 and 17. Thereafter, the panel 3 or plate 3' or
3" is restored to closed condition and the canis.fer is thus
retained in proper position within .the case or body of
the lighter,
Should the fuel in the main compartment 37 of the
canister become so depleted during use of the lighter that
a .good :flame is not produced at the wick, the user may
remove the canister from the lighter body and, by apply-
ing appropriate squeezing pressure to its wa.l!s (FIGS. 8
to 12), or displacement ofthe plug 49 (FIGS. 13 and 14),
cause rupture of the diaphragm 36 to thus permit the re-
serve supply .of fuel in the auxiliary compartment 38 to
:flow into the main compartment 37.
It is intended, moreover, that, in one form, or
the canisters need not be opaque, but may be macle of
an appropriate plastic which, in addition to being pliable,
is transparent. Thus, upon depletion of fuel, and removal
.of the canister, the user may v.isually ascertain the <:ondi-
tion of ihe fuel .supply, particularly when no abs01beut
material is used in the main compartment 37.
rupturing the septum 36, plus squeezing, makes for the
injection of fuel fully and rapidly from the auxiliary
compartment 38 into the main compartment 37 and this
would not be accomplished by the mere puncturing of
5 a small hole in the lower portion of the septum 36, inas-
much as fuel escape from compartment 38 into compart-
ment 37 would be extremely slow, if it occurred at all,
due to possible creation of a vacuum in compartment 38.
Various changes and modifications are considered to
1
o be within the principle of the invention and the scope
of the following claims.
What I claim is:
1. A removable, replaceable fuel canister for insertion
in and removal from the casing of a cigarette lighter
15 and the like, comprising a body made of a pliable ma-
terial and having walls distortable upon the application
of pressure thereto, the interior of said body being di-
vided by a rupturable septum to form within the body
a main compartment and an auxiliary compartment for
20 containing fuel, and means associated with said septum
and operable in response to distorting pressure applied
exteriorly of the said body walls to effect rupture of
said septum and establish intercommunication of said
compartments.
Since the fresh canister is charged at- .the factory with 25
predsely the correct quantity of fuel, as hereinbefore
:mentioned, underfilling, or overfilling with resultant flood-
ing, wJ.H be .totaUy obviated. Still further, with each fresh
canister of fuel the user receives a factory-new wick, as
2. A fuel canister as defined in claim l, in which
the means operable to rupture said septum comprise
weakening score means in said septum which provide
an opening in the septum upon the application of distort-
ing pressure to the said body walls .
. hereinbefore referred to, to insure a clean flame on 30
every str.iking, and thereby eliminating the problem of
wick-trimming or conventional wick substitution.
3. A fuel canister as defined in claim I, in which
.the means operable to rupture said septum comprise a
blade-like member carried by a wall of the body in
juxtaposition to said septum, said blade-like member
having an edge adjacent to said septum and adapted to
By replacement of the combined striker mechanism,
flint feeding mechanism and windguard, the user receives
not merely a new :flint, but a completely new feeding
. system, a sharp new striker wheel to insure instant spark-
ing, and a shiny-bright new windguard as well. Pro-
vision of the new windguard is an attractive feature be-
cause, in use, soot and scratches tend to accumulate with-
in arid on the wlndguard, giving the cigarette lighter a
used, or old, appearance, whereas the new assembly, at
the instant of replacement, makes the lighter look like
new and, even more importantly, function like new.
35 puncture the septum upon application of distorting pres-
sure to the body wall by which the said member is
carried.
4. A fuel canister as defined in claim 1, in which the
means operable to rupture said septum comprise a plug
It should be noted that in a cigarette lighter as here-
inbefore described, and in its working units, screw-thread-
ing has been totally eliminated. Also, there are no small
parts for the user to fumble with, or loss oi: damage,
and the flint cartridges and fuel canisters are replaceable
with counterparts in a matter of seconds, the used ones
being discarded in favor of factory-fresh ones.
40 member associated with said septum and defining a re-
movable portion therein, said plug member having an
operating extension passing through an opening in a
proximate wall of said body and serving as a means
for disengaging said plug from said septum to provide
45 an aperture therein.
5. A fuel canister as defined in claim 4, in which said
plug is provided with a wedge-shaped inner end adapted
to seat in the opening in said proximate wall upon dis-
engagement of .the plug member from the septum, to
It will be apparent that in any method of enclosing
the bottom of the body of a cigarette lighter in which
50 thereby seal said opening against escape of fuel through
such opening.
.the fuel canister of !he invention is used, an air-tight
and liquid-tight fit is not essential, since fuel will not
evaporate or leak out as is often the case in conventional 55
lighters.
The objective is not to supply reserve fuel, as such,
since the total fuel supply of any cigarette lighter is only
that. volumetrically containable within it. Instead, the
intention is to alert the user, upon diminution of the 60
lighter flame, to the fact that he must soon obtain a re-
placement fuel canister, yet in the meantime keeping his
cigarette lighter workable by use of !he auxiliary fuel
in the compartment 38. The physical acts of removing
the canister and squeezing it, or otherwise manipulating 65
it (FIGS. 13 and 14), to transfer fuel from compartment
38 to compartment 37, are, moreover, psychological
mediums to help impress more indelibly on the mind of
1,775,023
1,844,481
1,911,936
2,424,781
2,449,314
2,451,515
2,470,710
2,470,734
2,617,286
2,692,492
2,741,109
2,881,608
References Cited by the Examiner
UNITED STATES PATENTS
9/1930 Douglas ------------ 67-7.1
2/1932 Rogers -------------- 67-7.1
5/1933 Armstrong ----------- 67-7.1
7/1947 Vanetzian ------------ 67-7.1
9/1948 Nissen _________ .:. ____ 67-7.1
10/1948 Simon --------------- 67-7.1
5/1949 Mason -------------- 67-7.1
5/1949 Wolanske ------------ 67-7.1
11/1952 Prusack ------------- 67-7.1
10/1954 Hepburn ------------ 67-7.1
4/1956 Dupins -------------- 67-7.1
4/1959 Lockwood ----------- 67-7.1
OTHER REFERENCES
the user the fact that the total fuel supply is soon about
to be exhausted; so that he will not forget to obtain a
new canister of fuel.
German printed application No. 1,056,407, printed
70 April 30, 1959. . .

as already stated, the concept of slicing or
EDWARD J.' Primary Examiner.
KGM0000011
EXHIBIT 12

United States Patent 19J
Story et al.
[54] LAMP OR FLASHLIGHT FOR USE IN
CIGARET LIGHTER SHELL
[75] Inventors: Michael C. Story; Donald W. Murray,
both of Arlington, Tex.
[73] Assignee: Zippo Manufacturing Company,
Bradford, Pa.
[21] Appl. No.: 998,057
[22] Filed: Dec. 29, 1992
(51] Int. 0.
5
................................................ F21L 7/00
[52] u.s. a ..................................... 362/200; 362/109;
362/205; 362/253; 362/207
[58] Field of Search ............... 362/109, 186, 200, 201,
362/207, 208, 253, 802, 204, 205, 155
[56] References Cited
D. 175,315 8/1955 Quandt ............................ D26/38 X
D. 178,159 6/1956 Szamborski ..................... D26/38 X
D. i83,537 9/1958 Okada .......... : ................... D26/38 X
1,321,153 11/1919 Runnion .............................. 362/109
1,565,173 12/1925 Lyeso .................................. 362/109
1,784,114 12/1930 Schulte ................................ 362/201
1,940,843 12/1933 Britsch ................................ 362/201
1,948,613 2/1934 Britsch ................................ 362/201
1,951,097 3/1934 Lyeso .................................. 362/109
1,995,141 3/1935 Barber eta! ........................ 362/201
2,020,352 11/1935 Bolduc ............................... 362/205
2,032,695 3/1936 Gimera et a! ................. D27/159 X
2,066,028 12/1936 Britsch ............................... 362/109
2,075,883 4/1937 Britsch ................................ 362/109
2,118,997 5/1938 Zook ............................... 362/201 X
2,249,692 7/1941 Gelardin ............................. 362/200
2,406,071 8/1946 Gaiter ............................. 431/143 X
2,412,313 12/1946 Battersby eta! .. , ................. 362/201
lllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 11111111111111111111111
US005359505A
[11] Patent Number:
[45] Date of Patent:
5,359,505
Oct. 25, 1994
2,494,886 1/1950 Leif .................................. D26/38 X
2,607,883- 8/1952 :Berkowitz ........................... 362/109
2,697,297 12/1954 Newberg ........................ 362/201 X
2,867,753 1/1959 Quandt ............................ 362/200 X
3,010,645 11/1961 Mandelstam ..................... 230/249.5
3,247,688 4/1966 Godbe ............................. 431/143 X
3,344,266 9/1967 :Bramson ............................. 362/109
4,429,352 1/1984 Griffin ................................. 362/189
5,030,811 7/1991 von Gaisberg eta! ............. 219/268
Primary Examiner-Stephen F. Husar
Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Hodgson, Russ, Andrews,
Woods & Goodyear
[57] ABSTRACT
A lighting assembly for use in a cigaret lighter shell is
disclosed. The lighting assembly comprises an insula-
tive case for housing a power supply, such as batteries,
and conductors for establishing an electrical circuit that
includes the batteries, the conductors, a light bulb, and
the cigaret lighter shell. A reflector and lens may be
provided to focus and direct the beam generated by the
bulb. A resilient portion of one of the conductors is
biased against a wall of the cigaret lighter shell to close
the electrical circuit. An insulative tip is provided on an
end of the conductor and may be manually manipulated
to remove the conductor from contact with the shell
wall to open the electrical circuit and place the flash-
light in an unlocked off position. A groove may be
provided in the case to receive the tip and maintain an
open circuit to place the flashlight in a locked off posi-
tion. When a lid of the cigaret lighter is closed, the lid
engages the tip to remove the conductor from contact
with the shell wall and turn the flashlight off.
22 Oaims, 3 Drawing Sheets
k"" I 0
KGM0000012
U.S. Patent
Oct. 25, 1994
Sheet 1 of 3 5,359,505
~ 1
~ = = = = = = = = = = ~ ~ 1 6
32
FIG. I
24
KGM0000013
U.S. Patent Oct. 25, 1994 Sheet 2 of 3 5,359,505
6
FIG. 3
FIG. 4
KGM0000014
U.S. Patent
Oct. 25, 1994
Sheet 3 of 3
FIG. 5
5,359,505
10'
e:-
8'
KGM0000015
1
5,359,505
2
LAMP OR FLASHUGHT FOR USE IN CIGARET
LIGHTER SHELL
but nonetheless illustrative embodiments in accordance
with the present invention when taken in conjunction
with the accompanying drawings wherein:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
FIG. 1 is an elevated cross-sectional view of a light-
5 ing assembly and shell of the present invention showing
The present invention relates generally to lamps or the lighting assembly removed from the shell;
flashlights and particularly to a flashlight adapted for FIG. 2 is an elevated cross-sectional view of a flash-
insertion into a cigaret lighter shell. light of the present invention, showing the lighting
Lamps and flashlights of different shapes and sizes assembly inserted into the shell and showing the flash-
and utilizing different on/ off switches are well known.
10
light in an on position;
Miniature flashlights come in many sizes and shapes, FIG. 3 is an elevated cross-sectional view of the
however these flashlights are often too large or bulky or flashlight of the present invention, showing the lighting
have shapes which are inconvenient for carrying. The assembly inserted into the shell and showing the flash-
outer casings or shells for these miniature flashlights are light in an off position; and
often complex from a manufacturing standpoint which
15
FIG; 4 is an elevated, cross-sectional view of the
adds to the cost of the flashlights. Finally, these minia- flashlight of the present invention in a locked off posi-
ture flashlights are typically not well suited for the tion.
rugged storage and carrying conditions to which they FIG. 5 is an elevated cross-sectional view of an alter-
are often subjected. b d" f h fl hli h f th
20
nate em o unent o t e as g t o e present mven-
tion in an on position.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED
EMBODIMENT
It is therefore an .object of the present invention to
provide a lighting assembly adapted for insertion into a
cigaret lighter shell.
It is a further object of the present invention to pro- 25 In FIG .. 1, the reference numeral10 designates a lamp
vide a flashlight having a size and shape which is conve- or flashlight incorporating features of the present inven-
nient to carry and use. tion. The flasl_ilight 10 is of a cigaret lighter
It is a still further object of the present invention to shell or container 12 and a lighting _assembly 14.
provide a flashlight that may utilize a cigaret lighter shell 12 has a base _16 and a lid 18, by
shell as an outer casing or shell. 30 a 20. A bracket 22 1s secu:ed to an mner wall of
It is a still further object of the present invention to the hd 18 for reasons to be descnbed. The base 16 has a
provide a flashlight which is well suited for rugged floor 24, a lip 26, a rear wall28, a front wa!130, and two
storage and carrying conditions. side walls. The lid 18 has a roof, a lip 32, a rear wall 34,
It is a still further object of the present invention to a front wall 36, and two side walls.
provide a flashlight adapted for insertion into a cigaret 35 The lighting assembly 14 is adapted to be inserted
lighter shell which may be easily turned on and off into the shell 12 and comprises an insulative case 38 and
when a lid of the cigaret lighter shell is open. conductors 40, 42, 44 and 46. A light bulb 48, a reflector
It is a still further object of the. present invention to 50, a power supply or batteries 52 and 54, a lever 56, a
provide a flashlight adapted for insertion into a cigaret plunger 58, and a spring 60 may also be supplied. The
lighter shell which may be placed in a locked off posi- 40 lighting assembly 14 may also be provided with a lens
tion so that the light will stay off even when the lid of 62' as shown in FIG. 5.
the cigaret lighter shell is open. . The case 38 has a bottom wall 64, a rear wall 66, a
Toward the fulfillment and other front wall 68, and may have two side walls. An upper
apparatus of the m":entt?n featu:es a portion of the case 38 has apertures 70 and 72 for receiv-
assembly a?apt;d for mto a lighter. 45 ing and retaining electrodes 74 and 76 of the light bulb
shell. hghtmg assembly mcludes an case 48. An upper portion of the case 38 also extends about
for housmg a such and and above the light bulb 48 to secure the optional reflec-
ductors for eslll:blishing an electrical. crrcwt that m- tor 50 and lens 62 in place for focusing and directing a
battenes, the bulb and the beam of light generated by the bulb 48. The lever 56,
hghter A resilient one conduc- 50 plunger
58
, and spring 60 combination are secured
tor 1s biased agamst a wall of the c1garet lighter shell to "thin ert th
38
th all66 of
th I
"cal 1 th fl hli h Wl an ap ure m e case near e rear w
close . e ectri . crrc_rut _P ace . e as g t m an the case 38 and function to retain the lid 18 in the closed
on poSition. An msulattve tip lS proVIded on an end of . . . . .
the conductor and may be manually manipulated to pos_1t1on. The lever 56, plunger 58, and c?mbl-
remove the conductor from contact with the shell wall 55 nation well known to of skill m the
to open the electrical circuit and place the flashlight in art and will therefore not be discussed m detail.
an unlocked off position. A groove may also be pro- case 38 apertures 78 and for rece1vmg and
vided in the insulative case to receive the tip and hold 52_ 54. A portion of the conduc-
the conductor in a locked off position. When a lid ofthe tor 40 lS d1spose(l "?thin the case 38 near the bott?m
cigaret lighter shell is closed, the lid engages the tip to 60 wall 64 and extends mto the aperture 78 for
remove the conductor from contact with the shell wall an electrode of the battery 52. Another portion of the
and tum the flashlight off. conductor 40 extends outwardly from the rear wall 66
of the case 38 to contact the rear wall 28 of the base 16
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS when the lighting assembly 14 is inserted into the base
The above brief description, as well as further ob- 65 16 of the shell 12. A portion of the conductor 42 is
jects, features and advantages of the present invention disposed within an upper portion of the base 38 and
will be more fully appreciated by reference to the fol- extends into the aperture 78 for contacting an electrode
lowing detailed description of the presently preferred of the battery 52.
KGM0000016
3
5,359,505
4
The conductor 42 extends through the case so that circuit which includes the batteries 52 and 54, the bulb
another portion of the conductor 42 extends into the 48, the conductors 40, 42, 44, and 46, and the base 16 of
aperture 70 for contacting the electrode 74 of the bulb the shell 12, thereby placing the flashlight in an on
48. The electrode 74 is connected to the f!lainent of the position.
bulb 48 which is in turn connected to the other elec- 5 With the lid 18 in the closed position (FIG. 3), the lid
trode 76 of the bulb 48. A portion of the conductor 44 18 contacts an angled top portion of the tip 88, and the
extends into the aperture 72 for contacting the electrode lip 32 of the lid 18 pushes the tip 88 away from the front
76 of the bulb 48. The conductor 44extends through an wall30 of the base 16 of the shel112 to open the electri-
upper portion of the case 38 so that another portion of cal circuit and place the flashlight in an unlocked off
the conductor 44 extends into the aperture 80 for con- 10 position. When the lid 18 is placed in the open position
tacting an electrode of the battery 54. (FIGS. 2 and 4), the tip 88 may be manually pushed
A portion of the conductor 46 is disposed in the case away from the front wall 30 of the base 16 of the shell
38 near the bottom wall 64 and extends into the aperture 12 so that the protruding portion 92 of the conductor 46
80 for contacting the electrode of the battery 54. A is removed from contact with the front wall 30 of the
channel 82 having an inner wall84 and an outer wall86 15 base 16 of the shell12 to open the electrical circuit and
is provided near the front wall 68 of the insulative case place the flashlight in an unlocked off position.
38. A resilient portion of the conductor 46 extends Once in the unlocked off position, the tip 88 may also
within the channel 82 over substantially the entire be pushed upwardly so that an upper portion of the tip
length of the channel 82 at an acute angle to the inner 88 slides into and nests within the groove 90 to place the
wall 84. The acute angle formed is very small and is 20 flashlightinalockedoffposition(FIG.1). In the locked
typically less than five degrees, even when a portion of off position, the electrical circuit will remain open re-
the conductor 46 is biased against the front wall 30 of gardless of whether the lid 18 is in the open or closed
the shell 12 so that the flashlight is in the on position positions.
(FIG. 2). An insulative tip 88 is secured to an end por- An alternate embodiment depicted in FIG. 5 does not
tion of the conductor 46. For reasons to be described, an 25 utilize a channel 82, a protrusion 92, a groove 90, or an
upper portion of the tip is sized to nest within a groove aperture 94 in the front wall 68 of the case 38 and does
90 when the tip 88 is pushed away from the front wall not provide a locked off position. Nonetheless, the tip
68 of the case 38. A lower portion of the tip 88 has an 88' may still be manually manipulated to place the flash-
upper surface which is angled away from the front wall light 10' in an unlocked off position or an on position. In
68 of the case 38 and the front wall 30 of the base 16 of 30 the alternate embodiment, the lid 18' also engages the
the shell 12. tip 88' when the lid 18' is in the closed position to re-
A medial portion of the conductor 46 is bent to form move the conductor 46' from contact with the front
a protrusion 92 which extends toward the front wall 68 wall 30' of the base 16' of the shell 12' to open the elec-
of the case 38 and the front wall 30 of the base 16 of the trical circuit and place the flashlight in an unlocked off
shell 12. An aperture 94 in the front wall 68 of the case 35 position.
38 permits the protmding portion 92 of the conductor Several advantages result from the foregoing combi-
46 to contact and bias against the front wall 30 of the nation. For example, the present invention discloses a
base 16 of the shell 12. Although the protrusion 92 lighting assembly 14 which may be inserted into a ciga-
depicted is semi-spherical, the protrusion 92 may take ret lighter shell 12. The flashlight 10 has a size and shape
any number of shapes or may be formed by a knob or 40 which is convenient to carry and use, and the cigaret
other protuberance extending outwardly from the con- lighter shell 12 makes the flashlight 10 well suited for
ductor 45. Also, the groove 90 for nestingly engaging rugged storage and carrying conditions. The manually
the tip 88 may be used regardless of whether a channel operable tip 88 permits the flashlight to be turned on or
82, protrusion 92, or aperture 94 are used. off even when the lid 18 is open, and the locked off
In an alternate embodiment depicted in FIG. 5, no 45 position permits the flashlight to remain off even when
channel 82, groove 90, or protrusion 92 are utilized. the lid 18 is open.
Instead, a resilient portion of the conductor 46' extends It is understood that variations may be made in the
outwardly from the front wall 68' of the case 38' and present flashlight without departing from the scope of
alongside the front wall 68' of the case 38' over substan- the present invention. For example, the base 16 of the
tially its entire length. An insulative tip 88' is secured to 50 shell 12 need not be made of a conductive material as
an end portion of the conductor 46'. For reasons to be long as an electrically conductive path is provided
described, the tip 88' is disposed so that a top portion of across the base 16 between the conductor 46 and the
the tip 88' is angled toward the front wall 68' of the conductor 40. Additionally, the reflector 50 and lens 62'
insu!ative case 38' and away from the front wall 30' .of may be omitted or may be removable so that the bulb 48
the base.16' of the shell 12'. 55 provides an unfocused, substantially spherical source of
As shown in FIGS. 1 through 5, an aperture 96 may light. The lighting assembly of the present invention
be provided to store an extra bulb 98 within the case 38. may also be utilized with shells other than cigaret Iigh-
In operation, the lighting assembly' 14 is inserted into ter shells. Further, the flashlight may use one, two, or
the base 16 of the shell 12. A portion of the conductor more batteries depending upon the size and shape of the
40 is placed in permanent contact with the rear wall 28 60 container or shell utilized. Further still, bulbs other than
of the base 16 near the floor 24 of the base 16. When the the bi-pin bulb 48 depicted may be used. As illustrated
lid 18 is in the open position (FIG. 2), protrusion 92 of by the embodiment depicted in FIG. 5, the channel 82,
the conductor 46 extends through the aperture 94 in the groove 90, protrusion 92, and aperture 94 in the front
front wall 68 of the case 38 and is biased against the wall 68 of the case 38 are optional, and an unlocked off
front wall 30 of the base 16. The base 16 of the shelll2 65 position need not be provided.
is composed of a conductive material, such as a metal, A latitude of modification, change and substitution is
so that an electrical current may pass from the conduc- intended in the foregoing disclosure and in some in-
tor 46 to the conductor 40 to complete an electrical stances some features of the invention will be employed
KGM0000017
5
5,359,505
6
without a corresponding use of other features. Accord-
ingly, it is appropriate that the appended claims be con-
strued broadly and in a manner consistent with the
scope of the invention.
What is claimed is: 5
1. A flashlight comprising:
an insulative case adapted for insertion into a cigaret
lighter shell and having an aperture for retaining a
power supply;
a light bulb secured to an upper portion of said case; 10
a conductor having a proximal end disposed within
said case for establishing an electrical contact with
said power supply, and having a resilient distal end
extending from said case; and
means for completing an electrical circuit to permit 15
electricity to pass from said power supply through
said light bulb and said conductor;
said distal' end of said conductor being movable be-
tween a first position in which said conductor is in
contact with said means for completing an electri- 20
cal circuit and a second position in which said
conductor is removed from contact with said
means for completing an electrical circuit.
2. The flashlight of claim 1 wherein said means for
completing an electrical circuit comprises a metal ciga- 25
ret lighter shell.
3. The flashlight of claim 2 further comprising an
insulative tip secured to said distal end of said conduc-
tor.
4. The flashlight of claim 3 wherein: 30
said shell has a base and a lid, movable between an
open and a closed position;
said conductor contacts said base of said shell when
said conductor is in said first position; and
said tip is disposed to engage said lid when said lid is 35
moved to said closed position so that said lid forces
said conductor to said second position, removed
from contact from said base.
5. The flashlight of claim 4 wherein:
said case has a top, a bottom, a front wall, and a chan- 40
nel extending through said case near said front
wall;
said proximal end of said conductor is disposed
within said case near said bottom of said case;
said conductor has a resilient medial portion, and said 45
medial portion and said distal end of said conductor
extend through said channel to form an acute angle
with an inner wall of said channel.
6. The flashlight of claim 5 wherein said acute angle
is less than approximately five degrees when said con- 50
ductor is in said first position.
7. The flashlight of claim 5 wherein said tip is secured
to said distal end of said conductor so that said tip ex-
tends above said top of said base to permit said conduc-
tor to be manually moved between said frrst and second 55
positions when said lid is in said open position.
8. The flashlight of claim 7 wherein said case has a
groove disposed near said top of said front wall of said
case to nestingly engage said tip to retain said conductor
in said second position. 60
9. The flashlight of claim 8 further comprising:
a lever hingedly secured to an upper portion of said
case; and
a bracket rigidly secured to an inner wall of said lid;
said lever being adapted to slidably engage said 65
bracket to permit said lid to be moved to said open
and said closed positions, and said lever being con-
figured to fit within said bracket when said lid is in
said closed position for retaining said lid in said
closed position.
10. The flashlight of claim 9 wherein said power
supply comprises at least one battery.
11. A flashlight comprising:
a shell having a base and a lid which may be placed in
an open or closed position;
an insulative case nested within said shell, said case
having an aperture for.retaining a power supply;
a light bulb secured within said case;
means for establishing an electrical circuit to pass
electricity from said power supply through said
light bulb and through at least a portion of said
base, said means for establishing an electrical cir-
cuit including a resilient conductor having a proxi-
mal end disposed within said case and a distal end
extending outwardly from said case, said conduc-
tor being movable between a first position, in
which said conductor contacts said base to close
said electrical circuit and to place said flashlight in
an on position, and a second position in which said
conductor is removed from contact with said base
to open said electrical circuit and to place said
flashlight in an unlocked off position;
an insulated tip secured to said distal end of said con-
ductor and disposed so that, when said lid is in said
open position, said tip allows said conductor to
contact and bias against said base to close said
electrical circuit, and when said lid is in said closed
position, said tip engages said lid to move said
conductor to said second position.
12. The flashlight of claim 11 wherein said case has a
groove adapted to nestingly engage said tip to retain
said conductor in a third, locked off, position in which
said conductor is removed from contact with said base.
13. The flashlight of claim 12 wherein said container
comprises a cigaret lighter container.
14. The flashlight of claim 13 wherein said power
supply comprises two batteries.
15. A lighting assembly comprising:
an insulative case adapted to be inserted into a cigaret
lighter shell, said case having an aperture for re-
ceiving a power supply, means for receiving a light
bulb, and a channel extending through said case
near a front wall of said case, said front wall having
an aperture extending through an upper portion of
said front wall to said channel;
a conductor having a proximal end disposed within
said case and having a resilient distal end extending
upwardly through said channel and having a me
dial, protruding portion which protrudes toward
said front wall of said case, said protruding portion
registering with said aperture of said front wall of
said case to permit said protruding portion to pass
through said front wall aperture to contact said
shell when said case is inserted into said shell;
weans adapted for establishing an electrical circuit to
pass electricity from said power supply and
through said light bulb, said conductor, and said
shell, when said case is inserted into said shell;
said distal end of said conductor being movable be-
tween a fll"St position, in which said protruding
portion of said conductor is adapted to contact said
shell to close said circuit when said case is inserted
into said shell, and a second position, in which said
protruding portion of said conductor is adapted to
be removed from contact with said shell to open
KGM0000018
7
5,359,505.
8
said circuit when said case is inserted into said said lever being adapted to slidably engage said
shelL bracket to permit said lid to be moved between said
16. The lighting assembly of claim 15 further com- open and said closed positions, and said lever being
prising: configured to fit within said bracket when said lid
a metal cigaret lighter shell; 5 is in said closed position to reduce movement of
said case relative to said container.
a power supply; and 20. The lighting assembly of claim 19 wherein said
a light bulb. case has an aperture for receiving and storing a &pare
17. The lighting assembly of claim 16 wherein said light bulb.
shell has a base and a lid movable between an open and 10 21. A flashlight comprising: a case adapted for inser-
a closed position; and further comprising an insulative tion into a shell which includes a lid movable between
tip secured to said distal end of said conductor and open and closed positions, said case including means for
disposed to engage said lid when said lid is in said closed retaining a power supply; a light bulb secured to said
position so that said lid forces said conductor away case; a conductor having a first end portion disposed for
from said base to remove said protruding portion of said 15 establishing an electrical contact with the power supply
conductor from contact with said shell, thereby placing and having a resilient second end portion; means for
said conductor in said second position. completing an electrical circuit to permit electricity to
18. The lighting assembly of claim 17 wherein said from said power supply said bulb and
case has a groove adapted to nestingly engage said tip to means to of the
retain said conductor in a third locked off. position in 20 hd for movmg satd portl?n of satd
. . . . ' . ' _ tor from a first position m wh1ch said conductor IS re-
wh!ch satd protrudmg portiOn of satd conductor IS removed from co tact with said means for com lef an
d r. h "db n P mg
move Wit sat ase: electrical circuit to a second position in which said
19. The hghtmg assembly of clarm 18 further com- conductor is in contact with said means for completing
pnsmg: 25 an electrical circuit.
a lever hingedly secured to an upper portion of said 22. The flashlight of claim 21 wherein said shell is a
case; and cigaret lighter shelL
a bracket rigidly secured to an inner wall of said iid; * * * * *
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
KGM0000019
EXHIBIT 13

c12) United States Patent
Pfeil
(54) LIQUID FUEL LIGHTER WITH FIT-UP RIB
(75) Inventor: Bruce Michael Pfeil, Bradford, PA
(US)
(73) Assignee: Zippo Manufacturing Company,
Bradford, PA (US)
( * ) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
patent is extended or adjusted under 35
U.S.C 154(h) by 0 days.
(21) Appl. No.: 09/662,087
(22) Filed: Sep. 14,2000
Related U.S. Application Data
(60) Provisional application No. 60/193,026, filed on Mar. 29,
2000.
(51) Int. Cl.
7
................................................. F23Q 2/011
(52) U.S. Cl .......................... 431/142; 431/151; 431/152;
431/154; 431/344; 431/277
(58) Field of Search ..................................... 431/129, 143,
431/142, 133, 277, 151, 152, 137, 138,
154, 144, 344, 126
(56) References Cited
1,006,557 10/1911 Husson .
2,252,676 8/1941 Zaken ................................... 431/143
2,541,111 2/1951 Simon et al. ........................... 67/7.1
r;
10 24
11111111111111 111111111111111111 1111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111
US006247920Bl
(10) Patent No.: US 6,247,920 Bl
Jun.19,2001 (45) Date of Patent:
2,571,435 10/1951 Flamm .................................... 67/7.1
2,633,724 * 4/1953 Anderson ............................. 431/143
2,692,492 10/1954 Hepburn ............................ --. 431/143
2,774,234 12/1956 Blaisdell et al. ........................ 67/4.1
2,803,123 * 8/1957 Owen ................................... 431/152
2,810,282 * 10/1957 Mayer, Sr. .. ......................... 431/142
3,315,497 * 4/1967 MacDonald .......................... 431/125
3,353,375 * 11/1967 Bunyard et al. ..................... 431/154
3,999,937 12/1976 Lacks ................................... 431/344
4,011,040 3/1977 Lacks ................................... 431/344
4,133,450 1/1979 Beeson et al. ....................... 220/411
4,625,861 12/1986 Krog .................................... 206/234
4,901,848 2/1990 Parren .................................... 206i86
5,082,440 1/1992 Yamamoto ........................... 431/143
5,740,905 4/1998 Kilfoy .................................... 206i87
5,934,894 8/1999 Cigler ................................... 431/253
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
1592729 7/1981 (GB) .................................... 431/253
* cited by examiner
Primary 1-:xaminer-Carl D. Price
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Hoclgson Russ LLP
(57) ABSTRACT
A refillable pyrophoric lighter having an outer casing witb a
hinged cover and having an inside unit that is received inside
the casing by a frictional fit that is enhanced by at least one
transverse rib integrally formed on the outside of tbc hous-
ing of the inside unit.
9 Claims, 1 Drawing Sheet
19
KGM0000028
U.S. Patent Jun. 19,2001 US 6,247,920 Bl
52
13
.---llt--.2 8
FILJ Z
FILJ J
FICLI
FIIJ
70 70
70 70
FIC !513
KGM0000029
us 6,247,920 Bl
1
LIQUID FUEL LIGHTER WITH FIT-UP RIB
2
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention meets the above-described need by
providing a rib that is formed in the side or sides of the inside
This application claims benefit of provisional Applica-
tion No. 60/193,026 filed Mar. 29, 2000.
5
unit shell. The rib is a narrow form that extends horizontally.
The rib starts at the side comers of the inside unit shell and
gradually increases in thickness toward the center of the
shell. The shape may contain a single radius or may com-
prist: a cumpositt: of multipk radii and curds. Tht: rib
FIELD OF INVENTION
TI1e present invention -relates generally to lighters, and
more particularly to a fit-up rib for improving the fit between
the inside unit and the outer case of a lighter.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
10
preferably has a varying thickness that blends in at the
corners of the inside unit shell and extends out the farthest
at the center of the shell where the outer case is most
flexible.
The design of some reusable lighters incorporates a case
having a hinged top and a removable insert. The insert
contains the functioning mechanism of the lighter. Some
lighters have removable inside units for refilling the inside 15
unit with liquid fuel, whereas some lighters have permanent
inside units with refill ports on the bottom or side of the
lighter for refilling the liquid fuel reservoir in the inside unit.
For removable inside units, the optimal fit between the
inside unit and the case is when the inside unit can easily be 20
extracted and reinserted by hand, without the use of tools.
The fit of the inside unit to the case should not allow the
inside unit to move inside the case during normal operation
of the lighter. One method for ensuring this fit is to manually
spread the sides of the inside unit at the bottom. After 25
spreading the sides of the inside unit, this fit-up operation
requires insertion of the inside unit into the case to check for
fit. If the fit is not correct, the spreading step is repeated, and
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The invention is illustrated in the drawings in which like
reference characters designate the same or similar parts
throughout the figures of which:
FIG. 1 is a side elevation view of a lighter of the present
invention;
FIG. 2 is a partial top plan view of the lighter illustrating
the position of the inside unit with respect to the outer case;
PIG. 3 is a side elevation view of the inside unit of the
present invention; and,
FIG. 4 is a partial top plan view of the inside unit
illustrating a preferred embodiment of the fit-up rib of the
present invention.
the process starts again until the ftt is correct.
There have been many designs directed to the fit between
the inside unit and the case for lighters.
FIG. SA is a cross-sectional vit:w takt:n along lint:
30 SA-SA of FIG. 3; and,
U.S. Pat. No. 1,006,557 discloses a leaf-type spring
(reference "o" in FIG. 1) attached to the inner wall of the
outer case for securing the inside unit in the case.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,541,111 also discloses a leaf spring
35
attached to the inside wall of the outer case for positioning
and retaining the inside unit.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,571,435 discloses an inner container that
is held in position by screws and therefore is not manually
40
remuvabk. Reft:rring to FIG. 1, four Mructural membt:rs
hold the comers of the container 2, and a bottom plate 19
that is held in position by a screw 21, holds the container 2
in position.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,133,450 discloses a table lighter arrange-
45
men! where a disposable lighter is held firmly in the base by
upstanding flexible fingers with ribs disposed thereon. When
the lighter is inserted the upstanding fingers function as
springs to apply a force to the lighter to hold it in position.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,625,861 also discloses a case for a lighter.
50
As shown in FIG. 4, the case is designed to be smaller than
the lighter such that a tight fit is achieved.
FIG. SB is an alternate embodiment of the rib of the
present invention.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED
EMBODIMENTS
Rt:ft:rring gt:nerally to FIGS. 1-4, a lighter 10 of the
present invention includes an inside unit body 13 and an
outer case 16. The outer case 16 has a cover 19 attached by
means of a hinge 20. The inside unit body 13 and the outer
case 16 are both hollow and formed out of sheet metal. The
outer case 16 has two side walls 22, 23; two end walls 24,
25; and a bottom wall 26. The case is open at the top. The
hinge 20 attaches the cover 19 to the case 16 at the top of end
wall25.
The inside unit 13 is preferably formed as a sheet metal
casing 28 with an open lower end 62, and is provided with
a wick (not shown) that extends downwardly in a central
location to lht: lowt:r t:nd of the body 13. A f.tlling of suitabk
absorbent material (not shown), which may be of cotton,
surrounds the wick and fills the space within the metal
casing 28.
The inside unit 13 carries ao;; part of its mechanism a
striker wheel31, a flint 60, and a spring biased cover-control
U.S. Pat. No. 4,901,848 also discloses an outer case for a
lighter. The case provides asnug fit as shown in FIG. 5 or
a living hinge as shown in PIG. 6.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,740,905 discloses a set of notched flaps at
the top of the outer shell that deflect inward when the lighter
is inserted and maintain a force against the lighter body to
hold it in position.
55 lever 37. The inside unit 13 has a hollow housing 28 defined
by a first side wall 42 disposed in spaced apart relation from
a second side wall 44. A first end wall 46 is disposed in
spaced apart relation to a second end wall 48 and a top plate
The above-described patents provide solutions for the fit 60
bt:twet:n tht: insidt: unit and tht: <.:aSt: that art: gt:nt:rally
expensive, difficult to manufacture, and subject to failure
when exposed to repeated removal of the inside unit from
the case. What is needed is a relatively simple, durable
device for establishing and maintaining the proper fit 65
between the inside unit and the case for a liquid refillable
lighter with a removable inside unit.
50. The first and second side walls 42, 44 extend above the
top plate 50 and are formed to provide a wind screen 52 and
a front and rt:ar pair of lugs 54, 56. The inside unit 13 has
a lever 37 mounted between the rear pair of lugs 56 and a
spring-biased plunger (not shown) for biasing the lever 37
against the cross member 58 when the cover 19 is closed.
The inside unit 13 has a flint wheel 31 mounted in the front
pair of lugs 54. The flint wheel31 is disposed adjacent to the
flint 60 and to the wick extending from a fuel reservoir
KGM0000030
US 6,247,920 Bl
3
defined inside the housing 28. The workings and arrange-
ment of these parts are disclosed in greater detail in U.S. Pat.
No. 2,032,695, which is incorporated herein by reference.
The inside unit body 13 is disposed inside the outer case
16 by means of a snug frictional fit. The frictional fit has to s
be snug enough so that the inside unit 13 does not move
inside the outer case 16, yet is loose eriough such that it can
be removed for refilling. In order to refill the lighter 10, the
inside unit 13 is removed and lighter fuel is added through
the bottom of the inside unit 13. A resilient barrier (not
10
shown) covering the absorbent cotton material is removed
manually, and the lighter fuel is added to the absorbent
cotton material until a charge of fluid has been delivered.
Next, the inside unit 13 is frictionally fit back into the outer
case 16 such that the open end 62 of the inside unit 13 slides
15
down into engagement with the closed bottom of the outer
case 16 to form a fuel storage area that is sealed against
leaking by the snug fit.
The optimal fit between the inside unit 13 and the case 16
4
What is clain1ed is:
1. A lighter comprising:
a hollow casing having a first side wall disposed in spaced
apart relation to a second side wall, a first end wall
disposed in spaced apart relation to a second end wall,
an open top, and a bottom wall connected to the side
walls and end walls;
a cover pivotally attached to the casing by a hinge
disposed on the first end wall adjacent to the open top;
and,
an inside unit having at least one transverse rib disposed
across a majority of the width of at least one of the side
walls and integrally formed therein, the inside unit
sized such that the transverse rib fits snugly inside the
casing so that the inside unit is held in position by a
frictional fit yet can be removed from the casing by
hand, the transverse rib positioned such that it is near
the bottom wall when the inside unit is inserted into the
casing.
2. The lighter of claim 1, wherein the transverse rib is
disposed substantially parallel to the bottom wall of the
casing.
is when the unit 13 can be easily extracted and reinserted by
hand, without the use of tools. The proper fit of the inside
20
unit 13 to the case 16 should not allow the inside unit 13 to
move inside the case 16 under normal operation of the
lighter 10. 3. The lighter of claim 1, wherein a cross-section taken
25
along a longitudinal axis of tht: transverse rib is defined by
a curve having a single radius.
In order to provide for a snug frictional fit, the inside unit
13 of the present invention is provided with a horizontal
form or rib 70 that preferably extends across the entire width 4. The lighter of claim 1, wherein a cross-section taken
along longitudinal axis of the transverse rib is defined by a
curve having multiple radii.
of the inside unit 13. The rib 70 is integrally formed in the
sheet metal housing of the inside unit13 such that the inside
unit 13 fits snugly into the outer case 16. The horizontal rib
70 extends from one corner 80 where a side wall 22 meets
an end wall24 to the opposite corner 82 where the side wall
22 meets the opposite end wall 25.
5. The lighter o{ claim 1, wherein the transverse rib
30
extends from a first corner where the first side wall connects
to the first end wall to a second comer where the first side
wall connects to the second end wall.
The rib 70 is preferably narrower adjacent to the corners.
The corners 90, 92 of the outer case 16 correspond to the
35
corners 80, 82 of the inside unit 13 when the inside unit 13
is inserted into the case 16. The construction of the case 16
is strongest and has the least amount of flexibility in the
comers 90, 92 where the side wall 22 meets the end walls 24,
25. The outer case 16 becomes more flexible toward the
40
center of the side walls 22 where the maximum flexibility is
provided.
Accordingly, the thickness of the rib 70 preferably varies
roughly according to the flexibility of the side wall22. In the
corners 90, 92 where the outer case 16 is relatively rigid, the
45
rib 70 is provided with its minimum thickness. At the center
of the side wall22 where the case 16 is most flexible, the rib
70 is provided with its maximum thickness.
TI1e cross-sectional shape of the rib 70 may take several
forms including a single radius (FIG. SA) or multiple radii
50
and/or cords (FIG. SB).
The rib 70 provides several advantages including mini-
mizing single point contact between the inside unit 13 and
the case 16 both during removal and insertion of the inside
unit 13 and during normal use. By increasing the contact 55
area between the sides of the inside unit 13 and the case 16,
the rib 70 distributes the load over a larger area and therefore
provides better wear characteristics. The rib 70 also provides
a more consistent fit between the inside unit 13 and the case
16. 60
While the invention has been describt:d in connt:ction
with certain preferred embodiments, it is not intended to
limit the scope of the invention to the particular forms set
forth, but, on the contrary, it is intended to cover such
alternatives, modifications, and equivalents as may be 65
included within the spirit and scope of the invention as
defined by the appended claims.
6. The lighter of claim 5, wherein the transverse rib has a
first cross-sectional area adjacent the corner and has a
second cross-sectional area adjacent a midportion of the
transverse rib, the second cross-sectional area being larger
than the first cross-sectional area.
7. The lighter of claim 1, wherein the first side wall and
the second side wall have a transverse rib disposed thereon.
8. A pyrophoric lighter, comprising:
a hollow casing having a first side wall disposed in spaced
apart relation to a second side wall, a first end wall
disposed in spaced apart relation to a second end wall,
an open top, and a bottom wall connected to the side
walls and end walls;
a cover having a pair of spaced apart side walls and a pair
of spaced apart end walls, the cover pivotally attached
lo tht: casing by a hinge connec!t:d to the cover and to
the first end wall of the case adjacent to the open top,
the cover having a cross member disposed in spaced
apart relation to the end wall of the cover; and,
an inside unit having a hollow housing defined hy a first
side wall disposed in spaced apart relation from a
second side wall, a first end wall disposed in spaced
apart relation to a second end wall and a top plate, the
first and second side walls extending above the top
plate and being formed to provide a wind screen and a
front and rear pair of lugs, the inside unit having a lever
mounted between the rear pair of lugs and a spring-
biased plunger for biasing the lt:vtr against the cross
member when the cover is closed, the inside unit
having a flint wheel mounted in the front pair of lugs,
the flint wheel disposed adjacent to the flint and to a
wick extending from a fuel reservoir defined inside the
housing, the inside unit having at least one transverse
rib disposed across a majority of the width of at least
KGM0000031
US 6,247,920 B1
5
one of tile side walls and integrally formed therein, tl1e
inside unit sized such that the transverse rib fits snugly
inside the casing so that the inside unit is held in
position by a frictional fit yet can be removed from the
casing by hand, the transverse rib positioned such that 5
it is near the bottom wall when the inside unit is
inserted into the casing.
9. A method of manufacturing a lighter, comprising the
steps of:
providing a hollow casing having a first side wall dis- 10
posed in spaced apart relation to a second side wall, a
first end wall disposed in spaced apart relation to a
second end wall, an open top, and a bottom wall
connected to the side walls and end walls;
providing a cover pivotally attached to the casing by a
15
hinge disposed on the first end wall adjacent to the open
top;
providing an inside unit having a hollow housing defined
by a first side wall disposed in spaced apart relation
20
from a second side wall, a first end wall disposed in
spaced apart relation to a second end wall and a top
6
plate, the first and second side walls extending above
the top plate and being formed to provide a wind screen
and a front and rear pair of lugs, the inside unit having
a lever mounted between the rear pair of lugs and a
spring-biased plunger for biasing the lever against the
cross member when the cover is closed, the inside unit
having a flint wheel mounted in the front pair of lugs,
the flint wheel disposed adjacent to the flint and to a
wick extending from a fuel reservoir defined inside the
housing; and,
integrally forming at least one transverse rib disposed
across a majority of the width of at least one of the side
walls and integrally formed therein, the inside unit
sized such that the transverse rib fits snugly inside the
casing so that the inside unit is held in position by a
frictional fit yet can he removed from the casing by
hand, the transverse rib positioned such that it is ncar
the bottom wall when the inside unit is inserted into the
casing.
* * * *
KGM0000032
EXHIBIT 14

Aug. 1946.
/iJ
J, GALTER 2,406,071
CIGAR AND CIRARETTE LIGHTER
Filed July 9, 1945 ,.
.6.
??Zo r.r

.
KGM0000038
UNlTEo . STATES
:TE: -N T . ., :. .. -.
' . : ' ' ,.
"'1.
,. . ' ' . -
1
2;406,0!7'1
. 'l!ND. exa.mET'I'E liJGnTER
. . Jack Galtei;
AppliCa.tion.J:Uly.9, 1945;Seriii.J.No; 603;893
1 Claim. (CL 67 . ....,.;.7;1)
2,406,071
>::
O:F:FtCE
. _ .... ' . . .
2
. This .invention: rel-ates to. lighters adapted to 12--aiid ia have ears 31 with-openings a:2 'therein
function of i:ie!j.vy :winds; ancf USed 'tci pivotally Teceive the opposite ends :af pivot
for, .. the lighting of Cigars and cigarettes. . pins'a:a' which are . embedded'in::cani '34 which is
Ari:u)ngt:he objects of my invention is to pro- integrally formed 'as an extension :-at' the 'inner
vide a windproof lighter having a closure adapt- 6 end of inner side wall 29 on cover 211. The front
ed to easily and definitely open and close as de- and back walls 21 and 28 of cover 24 have round-
sired and to prevent undesired closing; to supply ed cut out portions 35 to correspond with round-
a. closure providing a good seal; to provide a con- ed ears 31.
tainer and casing so formed that the container .The cam 34 has a radius 36 at its free end. In
is easily removable from the casing but will not 10 use when the cover 211 is pivoted to open position
rattle when in position in the casing; to create a on casing I 0, radius 36 rides upwardly on spring
construction eliminating unnecessa1'y parts; and 21 until the radius is above center. Then the
such other objects advantages and capabilities spring 21 bears against the under portion of ra-
as will later more fully appear and which are in- dius 36 and holds the cover in open position by
herently possessed by my invention, 111 spring pressi:lre. During the pivoting. of cover
While I have disclosed herein certain pre- 24 to closed position, radius 36 rides downward-
ferred embodiments of my invention, yet I wish ly on spring 21 until' pa.St the half way mark.
it understood that the same are susceptible of Then. spring 21 beal:S against the upper of r.adius
modification and change without departing from 36 and holds the cover in closed position by spring -
the spirit of my invention. 20 pressure. . . . .
Referring to the drawing, Fig. 1 is a perspec- A. removabie c.ontainer 31 has a closed top 38,
tive view of the exterior of my device; Fig, 2 is a 'front and back walls. 39 and 40, and inner and
side elevational view with the cover open; Fig-. 3 outer side wal,ls Ill and 42. An open bottom 43
is a top plan view of the casing; Fig. 4 is a top leads to a hollow interior 44.
plan view of the device; Fig. 5 is an e:illarged 2li Within interior 44 is integrally formed a flint.
sectional view on line 5-5 of ]i'ig. 4; Fig. 6 is a tube 115 extending from the bottom to a boss 46
sectional view on line of Fig. 5; Fig. '1 :is a; in the top 38, which has an opening 96. A wick
bottom Plan view of the packing. hole 47 extends through top 38, Oil either .side
The embodiment selected to .illustrate my in- of hole 41 are a pair of spaced lugs_ 48 integrally
vention comprises a casing 10 having a closed 30 formed in top 38.
bottom II, a front wall _12, and a rear wall 13, an A flame guard 49 has a base 50, high opposite
inner side wall 14 and an outer side wall 15 form- side walls 51 curved to meet_ at one end; and end-
ing .a hollow interior 16 .and an open top 11. Ad- ing at the either end in a pair of spaced lugs 52.
jacent the i.ni:J.er wan. 14 but slightly spaced The side wallS 51 have a plurality of. opposite
therefrom are .ribs 18 integrally formed in the 35 spaced holes 53, and bottom cut out draft. par-
inner surfaces of front and rear walls 12 and tions . 54. The base 50 is mounted. on top 38 of
13. Said ribs are connected at their bottom por- container 31. The base has a central wick open:-
tions by integral connecting portion 19, on bot- ing 55 positioned to register with wick hole 41 in
tom II. The ribs 18 and connecting portion 19 container 31. The base :so also has a pair of
form with inner .side wall Ill a chamber 20 which 40 smaller openings 56 spaced on either side of Wick
houses leaf spring 21. Said spring is bent oil it- opening 55 and .adapted to receive lugs 4Q. The
self about one thrrd from its bottom, with the lugs 118 are then peened over to hold flame guard
lower double portion 22 within the lower portion 49 on container 31. .
of chamber 20 and the upper end 23 extendi:rig A kritirled wheel 51 is rotatably mounted on
through open top 11 a short distance above the 45 piri 58 extending between and attached to lugs
walls of the casing. The lower portion 22 of the 52, anci positioned. to strike against flint 59 ex-
spring 21 is bent slightly outwardly so as to bear tending out of opening 46 in boss 45.
against the ribs .18 so that the spring 21 is self Within flint tube 45 is a coiled spring 60, .the
. fastening within chamber 20, and ribs 18 act a.s upper end of which contacts-flint 59 and holds
an anchor for the spring 2 L liO it to extend through openi.D.g 46 to contact wheel
A cover 24 has a closed top 25, open bottom 51 .. An adjustment screw 61 has its upper s:hank
26, and complementary front 21, rear 28, inner 62 positioned Within spring 60 and has screw
side 29 and outer side 30 walls. . threadS 63 to engage the screw threadS 64 in the
My cover 24 is hinged to. casing I D as follows. lower erid of tube. 45, and an enlarged. end 65.
The upper inner corners .front and rear walls 65 A packing 6Gjs split to receive the !ower
KGM0000039
.. -
. 2,406,071
. :. ..
3 4
tion of a wick 67, both of which extend witbin front, back and bottom walls forming a chamber,
: interior . 44 of. container . 37. Lighting fiitici or a leaf spring positioned. within said chamber, said .
o'ther suitable liquid fluid is added to the pack- spring bent on itself about a third from its bot-
ing and the wick. The upper end of wick 61:ex-. .tom; with the double portion of the spring po-
. through openings 4l and .55 for llghtillg
5
sitioned. in the lower portion of s:dd chamber,
. u.Pori receiving a spark from the flint caused by the lower end of said spring bent to contact said
tumirig the wheei the.reagainst. . ribs, the upper end of., said spring extending
Therrorit and back walls 12. and_ 13 of casing slightly beyond the open top of said casing, said
10 have low ho:dzontitl ribs 68 at their bottom front and back walls having integral ears ex- .
1J9rporis; :;;o that.:Whe!i ci:mtai.riet 37 is.piacec:l. iii.
10
tending from .their. upper 'iriner corners, a. cover
the interior .16'of casing 10, tlie' ribs 68 prevent having corresPonding closed top, frofit, back and .
. the container 37 and screw 61 from touching the inner and outer side walls, a cam extending be-
. bottom II. The container is .held m_position by:/. : iond and formed integrally with said inner side
friction grip against .the front.and. rear walls : pivot Pll1S embedded in said cam and ex-
12 and 13, the outer side wall IS arid rtbs 18.
1
5 tending Within said ears to pivotally hinge said
Having thus described my invention,t:blairil:, ._. casing, said cam having a radius
. . In a. cigar and cigarette lighten 11 casing. . ... . to engage said spring for holding said
. ing closed: bottom, front,.back; outer. aiil:r inner- 'covei:'ih desired open al,ld Closed positions,. said
side walls andanopentop, a prur of spaced:nb:c .. hollQW interior of said casing adapted-to reinov-
formed in the fr()nt a*d back walls, said ribs 20 .ably. receive a fuel can;.said chamber corifining
slightly-spaced from the inner. side wall, and a said.spring and preventing its entry irito said
:connecting member . connecting .tlie.l:iottom :por- 'iiollow interior itrid .. interference- with 'the :free
. !la:iii 'ingress and the fuei can:. ' . . . . . . .
.. of.the,inner:;;ide wall; the. . ...... - . . . JACK GALTER
.. -'..
.. .
..
. . - :. ..
... ,
' :" .
. ......
.! ;,: .. :
:., !-
. . - j
.....
KGM0000040
EXHIBIT 15
KGM0000612
United States Patent [!9J
Ichikawa
[54] LIGHTER OR THE LIKE
[75] Inventor: Kaname Ichikawa, Tokyo, Japan
[73] Assignee: Modern Royal Co., Ltd., Tokyo,
Japan
[] Term: 14 Years
[21) Appl. No.: 604,004
[22) Filed: Oct. 26, 1990
[30} Foreign Application Priority Data
Aug. 31, 1990 [JP] Japan .................................... 2-29061
(52} U.S. Cl. ................................................... D27/ 159
[58] Field of Search ...................... 0 27/139, 155, 159;
431/124-144; 206/264
[56) References Cited
D. 143,295 12/1945 Fisher .................... ............ 027/ 159
D. 206,898 2/1967 Ensign ............................... 0 27/159
D. 290,525 6/1987 Ichikawa ........................... 027/ 148
1.700,021 1/1929 Brockmann ................ .. ... 431/137 X
2,423,567 7/1947 Sherman ..................... ........ 431/124
2.814, 1901 1/ 1957 Bryam ............................ 431/l24X
3,533,550 10/1970 Petersen ............. ............. 206/264 X
542102 12/1931 Fed. Rep. of Germany ...... 431/ 143
[II] Patent Number: Des. 320,467
[45} Date of Patent: ** Oct. 1, 1991
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Continental Catalog, 1950, p. 82, lighter, item Fin mid-
dle of page-left end.
Form, Jan. 1982, p. 70, lighter, located in upper left--
hand corner.
Primary Examiner-Wallace R. Burke
Assistant Examiner- Holly H. Baynham
Auorney. Agent. or Firm-Obion, Spivak, McClelland,
Maier & Neustadt
[57} CLAIM
The ornamental design for a lighter or the like, as
shown and described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a top perspective view of a lighter or the like
showing my new design;
FIG. 2 is a front elevational view thereof;
F IG. 3 is a rear elevational view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a right side elevarional view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a left side elevational view thereof;
FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof;
FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof;
FIG. 8 is a rear elevational view thereof with the lid
open;
FIG. 9 is a right side elevational view thereof with the
lid open; and
FIG. 10 is a top plan view thereof with the lid open.
i.
r
,1.
KGM0000613
u.s. Patent Oct. 1, 1991 Sheet 1 of 2 Des. 320,467
FIG. I
FJG.2 FIG . 3
FIG.4
FIG.5
KGM0000614
U.S. Patent Oct. 1, 1991 Sheet 2 of 2 Des. 320,467
FIG.6 FIG.7
FIG. 8
FIG.9
FIG.IO
EXHIBIT 16
C
a
s
e

0
:
1
2
-
c
v
-
6
1
6
6
9
-
W
P
D

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

4
2
-
1
7

E
n
t
e
r
e
d

o
n

F
L
S
D

D
o
c
k
e
t

0
9
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
3

P
a
g
e

2

o
f

6
C')

0
9

Gl
:;:ru
oJ
:<:J
()jQ
:;:ru
..........
a:,......_
:::c::,.....
->-
iRO'-"
ii5JH
m1r
l1f o]
o] :ZJ

,......_
.....-..C'J
0) ......
............
-
oru f6

l{)
Oj!l)8
I'- 0
01
:'jj
l{)GJ
Gl
:;:ru
K" 1101
oru liJ
1-11-1
r-JD r-ID

l{)

(..)
OCJ
c:: C\J
- ...._
C\J

l{)C\J
LL
:;:: oilll (j)
I'- 0

0 N
I
(1; 3"J

M M
--- ---

UlO UlO
N N
:l(f :l(f
1\J 1\J
n- n-
g: oill

Jo
8 JD JD i\ill
8 0111 =< =< lir
9 l)f l)f
@ 3"J iiZ.U!O ;pu rro LH
I)O;p[JI)O;p[JJl"O
:<ru r;o oJ r;o oHIO
K" oJ
oJ n:J
li a
N '<I"
r-- r--

'-
OlD

or 010
O:j 5
l.Ji
l:lj
e:r
-
l.Ji
LH LH
m m
u
0
LH
m
i'l"O
JIJ
5
UJ
i-ZO i-ZO LH :::J
LH ll"J
i'lJ JIJ JIJ =o IDIID
;'1;53K55
m m
JIJ
=
= 5 w
. .
i1J K1 K1 :::J
:::J rt- rt- IDiill R ll"J ilif iilO f.l"J -<1
illlill llr llr K1 :J::O iiiD I :J::O 1101
K1 5 5 rt- l1ll i'JO Ul.J ?\ill -<I UlJ -<1
n- JJr o1 :J::ill .. .. ..
: : 5 OT "'" ro "" w n

-< -<
01
;rr nr-
0
N

roiiO\
-<1

!:::. iJU
i!IO

:5 RO

rulli
Jr m

rnuiiO\
Ii KD
iiO\Illl
KD Ol
1-j(j)
l)ill
o1ru!:::.
RO i!IO
i:lr R
1
K
_Dill
!10
rn1r ll"J
.01
I1Jj JIID
Ol
TJ 01ru .
mrnuu
iiOJ:Bo
i"rJ iiO\
8' KD iiOJ

ruu ou

-<1

Jr JID -< 13
-<
Oi_5-
i'JQ
Klru :J::ill :i! o
i'lO l:lJ rnu rnu uu -<1
15
:J::ID OIID Ii Ii OIID 1101 DfJ
S: iiOJ RO iiO\ iiO\ RD -<1
a
-
n ol Klill nJO
OT LH LH LH LH LH m
iiOJ n orll
iiO\ 010 -<1
=o
Ii -< w n
IT-i 010
n i!IO iD' OT
i:lr iiiO i'I'K -<1

a m "" M "'" l{) LH
li I'" LH - - - - - ... o "'" ro
I.JI .......... lOt- ........., i3< i=!< P< ie <0 -r- .,..- or-
. . . . . . 010
"" :<ill
N

oJ iiO\
1-j KD JIJ
]IJ l1ll IT-i

. JIJ Ii
I::HR
or- oJ
K.!
_ijQru

0\ KO
llllu

i'<
DID i!IO
RIK
OT
ill

rts
110
LH

JIJ
0
110

o-iiOI
rts IK KO
1
61=
i. -<I:::!(
niWrrr
OIOKUill

-r-WIJ
iiOJ
JIO iiOI
o KD

JJr iiOJ
l1ll ilif
Ol
IK
61= IDiill
..:.J-<IR
Ii iiO!J oJ
oiK Kill
JIJ ijQru
RIK IT-i iiO\
Dill UlO KD
OT Kf l1ll
RJ I1Jj Ol
KjO iiO i!IO
:=;' li.
;=,m

on
;:tsiiOI
-<I KD
nllJj
oiOOI
a i!IO
RIK

110
JIO ll"J
;:!\01

n
iiOI Olill
KO rnu
llllii

i!IO

:Eli
IT-i
OIK
ill
0
rts
:i!
n
010
a

iiOJ
;rr
0
iiOJ

n
n
iiO\
KO
l1ll
Ol
i!IO

Ii
n....: oiK
i!IO iiO\ u
RIK KD 0
Dillllll RIK
l1ll Ol ill Dill
Ol i!IO llif I1Jl
oJ LH Ol
rnu :5 m iJJ
:E rnu
iiO\ I)J ;=!\ Ii
KD lUI ii01 ii01
_ Jr -<1 KD
0
o
_UIIJ Ol
'KiiiJU-
61= iiO\ IK
-<I KD OIID 61=
iiO!J RD -<1
i-Zill--= i:lr iW
JIJ OT Kill
:::J
nJ m o rrr
om lim rts n
I
l{)
('f)
""'"
0
0
0
0
0

C)

g t! 2_1- 1995--{)005453
-E !r.5JI tH Jf!:::Jf
Wil S:lt:l Jf!:::Jf
2!11 i'iofCJ:I, JHJ!IIOII 1ofCJ:I ofJI
1ofCJ:I ofs:l.Cf . .::l2.1Lf <gJ8
1 t:l <gJJ!II 1 :AI BL:il <gJJ!II1 ofs:l. Cf.
ITfefA-1 !r.5JI t\t.Qt:l Jf!:::Jf !r.5t:l
\?Qt:l .:1:21-Jf
\=:! .gEHOIIA-1 \:l!""l B!"g .g
EHOIIA-1-E Jf!:::Jf <gJOI l:l:(-E 3iOICf.
Olof 1J1ofCJ:I .gA11ofJil
All 1 LHJI X11 4 tJf21- . .gJI
;011
.gEH DII-'?JI(10)1 Of011 !:::g'5 .g8011-E "L"
.gJI Jf!:::!:::(20)
-E Jf!:::ClltH(22)1 of -=jJ.::;::OICf.
.2 18a-E 20a-E Jf!:::2!:::, 24
-E efOI El1 26g 2.f01 El 1 8 DII-'?JI 28g E, 30g III 011.::;::. 32-E ('.!
34-E 35g IIIOII.::;::(30)21- ('.!tl, 38g !::,g
'5, 40g 42-E DII-'?JI(10)21- !:::g'5
All 1 tJf21- *<Si.Q AHUi DII-'?JI(10)Jf
DII-'?JI '5 0-(26)011 2.i A-1 *{!'l Q Ol ?9 Cf. ITf2.fA-i DII-'?JI ( 10).1 of011 gJ- !::,g '5 ( 12)
.1 .g8011 OlofJil
.::1 lOI -JUi 1ofCJ:I
Cf. 01 [H XH .:JCH Jf!:::-E 81"-ECf.
\=:! .gEHOIIA-i !r.5t:l All 2 tJf21- of011 i'l
J:le!: Jf!:::ClltH(22)1 lOI ofbil .::1 lOI i'i
Oi AIOII .::1 of011
0121- AIOII of011 IIIOII.::;::(30)011A-I ('.!JIJf !:::Ilf3

Jf!:::-E
. .::l2.1Lf Jf!:::!:::(20)-E Jf!:::ClltH(22)011
A.i Jf!:::Jf ?1-E:Cf. ITfefA-i !r.5
.gEHOIIA-1-E lXI 81"-E:Cf.
Xil 3 tJf21-
.::1 of011 Jf!:::ClltH(22)1 Cf. ITfefA-1 Jf!:::CIItH(22)-E
!r.5JI 81"Jil 1.9. Jf!:::.2!:::(2)Jf . .::l2.1Lf
g Jf t:! (4)011 8 '5"'' (8) Oil (6)Jf 2.:j A-i C-i 01-g XI B!"Jil 1 .9.
J;H .:JCH 8Cf.
ITfCI-A-1 Jf!:::-E *
.gEHJf 8Cf . .::l2.1Lf tJioH DH.>F !.llOiA-i
fFJH1 2fF Jf!:::1 CH;g tHLi
<gJ'f!1 Jf!:::e.!- Jf!:::Jf
[HOlle! [HOII Jf!:::1 lXI 81"
-ECf.
[HOll-E IIIOII.::;::(30)011A-i ('.!JIJf ?JQQ !:::Ilf3Jf
l?J-ECf . .::l2.1Lf S:IOi .gEHOIIA-1 1ofCJ:I
Cf. 01 .gEHDIIA-i CfA.I i?'J.>FDII-E .:JCH !r.5t:l
[H21- .1ofCJ:I
CfAI Cf. ITfefA-1
*Jf .
i?'J-'f-011-E 2J"EH, 8 .gEHDIIA-1 \?Q
t:l All 4 tJf21- DII-'?JI(10)Jf *<Si.Q 1.9., Dll
-'?JI(10).1 of011 !:::g'5 .g8DII Olof
t:IA-1 .::1 lOll lOi -JIJil 8Cf. ITfefA-i
:l:!Oilft:IA-1 .:1:21-Jf 8Cf.
01.g111- l:l:(OI * OfLI
ef, !r.5JI ('.!011-E Jf!:::Jf t',!-QQ
!r.5-E '2.!-011 Jf!:::Jf \::ftJI1-E efOIEI1
C-l2.f Jf!:::Jf 23 2.Df l:l:( -E 3i 01 Cf.
(57) gJf
5-2
KGM0000044
1995--{)005453
1:H
?3 210if-1, 2!-JI

?ii
'SE:!(14)01 E!-{3E:! :r{38 .
.1!'! 1
.1!'!2
5-3
KGM0000045
f53
f54
*
\
)
*
~ g tJ 2 1 ~ 1995-0005453
5-4
KGM0000046
tJ 0 1995--{)005453
f!!5
5-5
KGM0000047
EXHIBIT 17

United States Patent 19J
Ichikawa
[54] UGH1ER
[75] Inventor: Kaname Ichikawa, Tokyo, Japan
(73] Assignee: Royal Intematlonal Corporation,
Tokyo, Japan
[ ] Notice: The portion of the terril of this patent
subsequent to Oct. 1, 2005 has been
disclaimed.
14 Years
[21] Appt No.: 728,958
[22] Filed: Jnl. 11, 1991
[30] Foreign Application Priority Data
Mar. 26, 1991 [JP] Japan ...................................... 38200
[52) u.s. a .................................................... D27/t57
[58] Field of Search .............................. 027/154-156,
D27/159, 157;431/128-142
[56] References Cited
D. 208,424 8/1967 Hocq .................................. D27/154
D. 217,384 4/1970 Rams ................................. 027/1S4
D. 243,963 4/1977 Stephens, Jr ...................... 027/156
D. 249,812 10/1978 Goto .................................. D27/156
D. 314,837 2/1991 Nitta .................................. 027/154
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllll
USOOD339209S
[II] Patent Number: Des. 339,209
[45] * Date of Patent: *"' Sep. 7, 1993
D. 316,614 4/1991 Ichikawa .......................... 027/154
D. 320,467 10/1991 Ichikawa ........................... 027/159
223101 2/1963 Japan ................................. 027/m
OTHER. PUBLICATIONS
Hong Kong Enterprise, Mar. 1985, p. 68, lighter, lo-
cated in middle of page.
Primary Examiner-Wallace R.. Burke
Assistant Examiner-H. Baynham
Attorney, Agent, or Firm..o...()blon, Spivak, McClelland,
Maier & Neustadt
[57] CLAIM
The ornamental design for a lighter, as shown and de
scribed.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a front elevational view of a lighter, showing
my. new design;
FIG. l is a rear elevational view thereof;
FIG. 3 is a left side elevational view thereof;
FIG. 4 is a right side elevational view thereof;
FIG. 5 is a. top plan view thereof;
FIG. 6 is a bOttom plan view thereof; and,
FIG. 7 is a front and top perspective view thereof with
a lid open.
II
I
KGM0000036
U.S. Patent Sep. 7, 1993 Des. 339,209
FIG.1 FIG.2
FIG.3 FIG.4 FIG .. 5
- ..
Ill' .
IJ
'II

F I G.6
,,,,,
FIG.7
KGM0000037
EXHIBIT 18
NewTerm: dm/056740
(DM/567 40) Metal windproof lighter, plastic
disposable lighter I Briquet metallique a l'epreuve du
vent, briquet a jeter en matieres plastiques
Depots publies selon I'Acte de 1960 1
Deposits Published Under the 1960 Act I
Registros publicados en virtud del Acta de 1960
(11) Registration number
DM/056740
(15) Date of the international registration
07.05.2001
(18) Expected expiration date ofthe registration/renewal
07.05.2016
(73)Name of holder
POLL YFLAME FRANCE S.A., 7, avenue du Bouton d'Or, Z.A. des Petits Carreaux, F-94370 Suey en Brie (FR)
(B6) Contrac:ting Party ofwhich the holder is a national; where there are several holders, the order of the Contracting
Parties listed corresponds to the order of the holders given under(73), "- -" indicating the absence of such a
Contracting Party with respect to a given holder
(87) Contracting Party inthe territory of which the holder has a domicile; where there are several holders, the order of
the Contracting Parties listed corresponds to the order of the holders given under (73), "- -" indicating the absence of
such. a Contracting Partywith respecttoagiven holder
(88) Contrac:ting Party in the territory of which the holder has an industrial or commercial establishment; where there
are several holders, the order of the Contracting Parties listed corresponds to the order of the holders given under
(73), "- -" indicating the absence of such a Contra ding Party with. respect to a given holder
FR
(74) Name and address of representative
Vereenigde P.O. Box 87930, NL-2508 DH The Hague (NL)
(28) Number of designs included in the international registration
2
.(54) Indication of products
Metal windproof lighter, plastic disposable lighter I Briquet metallique a l'epreuve du vent, briquet a jeter en matieres
plastiques
(51) Class and subclass ofthe Locarno Classification
Cl. 27-05
(81) Designated Contracting Parties
I. BQ, CW, EG, ES, SX, TN. II. BX, CH, DE, FR, GR, IT
(45) Date of publication of the registered industrial design by printing or similar process, or making it available to the
public by any other means
31.08.2001
http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/hague/key.jsp?KEY=DM/056740
KGM0000041
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.6
2.2 2.3
1.3
1.7
2 . .11 2.5
f ~ --- ;;<
\ ~ :.,., ' ~ ! .
2.6
http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/hague/key.jsp?KEY=DM/056740
1 . .11
2.1
1.8
2.7
KGM0000042
EXHIBIT 19
United States Patent Office
188,507
CIGAR LIGHTER OR SI:\IILAR ARI'ICU:
.James Donald Smilh, Stroudsburg, l'a., assignor to Ron
son Corporation, Woodbridge, N . .J., a corporation of
New .Jersey
Filed .Jan. 13, 1959, Ser. No. 54,153
Term of patent 14 years
(CI. 048-27)
Des. 188,507
Fig. I is a side elevation of a cigar lighter embodying
my new design;
Figs. 2, 3. 4 and 5 are respectively an end eleV<llion; top
plan view ; bottom plan view; and perspective view
thereof.
References Cited in the file of t i ~ patent
UNITED STATES PATENTS
The characteristic features of my design for the cigar
lighter disclosed, reside in the windshield and sparking
wheel supporting member thereof. havin[! the configura-
tion shown.
I claim:
The ornamental design for a cigar lighter or similar
article, substantially as shown and described.
D. 143,295
D. 173,552
Fisher ---------------- Dec. 25, 1945
Aronson -------------- Nov. 30. 1954
OTHER REFERENCES
N:1tional Jeweler, May 1956, page 25, top of page.
Zippo lighter.
Luggage and Leather Goods. April 1946, page 55,
upper left-hand corner, Model No. 1, windproof li[!hter.
KGM0000033
EXHIBIT 20
0:12-CV-61669 WPD-LSS
limited liability company
V.
Corporation, JOHN DOES 1-10 and XYZ
CORPORATIONS 1-10,
~ ~
)
)
)
)
~ PLAINTIFFS' DISCLOSURE OF
) ASSERTED CLAIMS AND
) INFRINGEMENT
) CONTENTIONS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_______________________________ )
In accordance with the Court's Order, dated December 14, 2012, (Dkt. No. 30), and the
parties' agreed Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, dated December 12, 2014, (Dkt. No. 28-1),
Yigal Cohen Harel, and Integral Logistics, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs") provide the following
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions relative to KGM Industries Co.,
Inc. ("Defendant"). This disclosure is made solely for the purpose of this action.
Discovery in this matter is at a very early stage and is ongoing. Defendant has not yet
produced any documents and things, or provided any deposition testimony or other discovery in
this action. Plaintiffs' investigation regarding these and other potential grounds of infringement
is ongoing. This disclosure is therefore based upon information that Plaintiffs have been able to
obtain publicly, together with Plaintiffs' current good faith beliefs regarding the Accused
Instrumentalities, and is given without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to supplement or amend its
21934/042/1367463.1
disclosure as additional facts are ascertained, analyses is made, research is completed and claims
are construed.
Based on the information presently available, Plaintiffs state that Defendant (and any of
its predecessors in interest) infringe the sole claim of the U.S. Patent No. D501 ,274 ("the '274
patent") and the sole claim of the U.S. Patent No. D498,328 ("the '328 patent") and Plaintiffs
provide the charts contained in the Exhibits. Such charts contain representative examples of
infringement by the Accused Instrumentalities. The claim of the '274 patent asserted against
Defendant (see claim charted in the examples provided in Exhibit A) is directed to a lighter,
made, used, sold and offered for sale by Defendant, as exemplified in Exhibit A. The claim of
the '328 patent asserted against Defendant (see claim charted in the examples provided in
Exhibit B) is directed to a lighter, made, used, sold and offered for sale by Defendant, as
exemplified in Exhibit B. The examples shown in the Exhibits are not meant to limit the scope of
the Accused Instrumentalities in any way. The Exhibits merely use the disclosed examples to
illustrate the theories for infringement held by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend and
supplement this disclosure, as well as the Exhibits.
Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the claims of the '274 patent and the
'328 patent by making, using, selling and/or offering to sell, or allowing others to make, use, sell
and/or offer for sale, in the United States or by importing into or allowing others to import into
the United States, the Accused Instrumentalities that are covered by the claims ofthe'274 patent
and the '328 patent. In addition, through the sale of the Accused Instrumentalities to others for
resale, Defendant has induced infringement of the '274 patent and the '328 patent by others and
has committed acts of contributory infringement of the '274 patent and the '328 patent.
-2-
21934/042/1 367463.1
Since at least March 30, 2012, when Defendant was put on actual notice of the '274
patent and the '328 patent, Defendant has had knowledge ofthe ' 274 patent and the '328 patent
and, by continuing the actions described above, has had the specific intent to induce infringement
of the '274 patent and the '328 patent pursuant to 35 U.S. C. 271 (b) .
Based on the information presently available, it appears that each asserted claim is
literally infringed by the Accused Instrumentalities. Additionally and/or alternatively, Plaintiffs
assert that each asserted claim is infringed by the Accused Instrumentalities under the doctrine of
equivalents. For example, Plaintiffs assert that, for any claim limitation Defendant argues is not
literally met by the Accused Instrumentalities, such claim limitation is at least met under the
doctrine of equivalents because a person of ordinary skill in the art would find that the
differences between that claim and the Accused Instrumentalities, as explained by Defendant, to
be insubstantial.
Dated: February 4, 2013
21934/042/1367463 . I
COWAN, LIEBOWIJf & LATMAN, P.C.

Tel : (212) 790-9200
Phillip E. Holden, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 14395)
Email: Phillip.holden@integrityforjustice.com
355 Palermo Avenue
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 444-7675
Fax: (305) 444-0075
-3-
21934/042/1367463 .1
OF COUNSEL:
Email: 1111m@cll.com
Email: asc@cll.com
Mark Montague, Esq.
Email: mxm@cll.com
Email: mgg@cll.com
Tel: (212) 790-9200
-4-
I hereby certify that on February 4, 2013 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
served by First Class Mail and E-mail to the attorneys identified on the below Service List.
~ i ~
LaTo R. Middleton
-5-
21934/042/1367463.1
SERVICE LIST
GRAY-ROBINSON, P.A.
Kevin Crosby, Esq. (FBN 654360)
E-mail: kevin.crosby(ci{gray-robinson. com
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1850
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
KGM Industries, Co., Inc.
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
Steven Nataupsky, Esq.
Email : ?teven.nataupsky@knobbe.com
Ali S. Razai, Esq.
Email: ali.razai@knobbe.corn
2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 760-0404
Facsimile: (949) 760-9502
Attorneys for Defendant
21934/042/1367463.1
-6-
EXHIBIT A
PLAINTIFFS' INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS FOR US D501,274 PATENT
Yigal Cohen Harel and Integral Logistics, LLC v. KGM Industries Co., Inc. l2cv61669WPD LSS
Accused Instrumentality: KGM Vector Thunderbird Lighter and Lighter Insert
Patent: US D501,274
No. USP s
1.
2.
FIG.2
3.
'274 KGM Infringement Contentions-!
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
Yigal Cohen Harel and Integral Logistics, LLC v. KGM Industries Co., Inc. 12cv61669WPD LSS
Patent: US D501,274
4.
FIG.4
5.
F1G,.5
'274 KGM Infringement Contentions-2
Exhibit A
Case 0:12-cv-61669-WPD Document 42-21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 10 of
14
EXHIBIT A
Patent: US D501 ,274
6.
Exhibit A
~
l ~ =
-_....,;-.;;;,_
~ -
-
"
- - -
FIG.6
14
EXHIBIT A
Patent: US D501 ,274
7.
I
H
~ ~ ~
~ : ~
'
"I'
I
.,
ljl
il
I
I
I I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I I
i
I
I
~ ~
FIG.7
Exhibit A
14
EXHIBIT B
Patent: US D498,328
1.
2.
3.
Exhibit B
FIG.l
FIG.2
FIG.3
. qr
1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " " ' " ' ~ 1 ~
''lllltlilllllfll lllft\
'328 KGM Infringement Contentions-!
14
EXHIBIT B
Patent: US D498,328
4.
5.
FIG.5
6.
OU20
1
1
FIG.6
Exhibit B
14
EXHIBIT B
Patent: US D498,328
7.
FIG.7
Exhibit B

Harel v. KGM - MSJ Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harel v. KGM - MSJ Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

# 2489428 v1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

design. At the same time, KGM

-type lighter with a push-button ignition. This is simply wrong.

-type lighters, like the ones claimed in the asserted

Manufacturing Company, on June

Lighter was published in a catalog in 2002. Razai Decl., Exh. 8

-type cases, a field that has been under

-type design of the

-type lighters with push-

-type lighter depicted in the 274 and 328 patents

Bates Stamped Harel

No. Line No. Change

You might also like