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
26
27
28
1
The cour t al l owed Z Pr odux, I nc. t o f i l e a sur r epl y.
O
NO J S- 6
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
CENTRAL DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A
Z PRODUX, I NC. ,
Pl ai nt i f f ,
v.
MAKE- UP ART COSMETI CS, I NC. ,
Def endant .
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 13- 00734 DDP ( RZx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ DKT No. 35]
Bef or e t he cour t i s Make- Up Ar t Cosmet i c, I nc. ’ s ( “MAC”)
Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment . The mot i on i s f ul l y br i ef ed.
1
Havi ng
consi der ed t he par t i es’ submi ssi ons and hear d or al ar gument , t he
cour t now adopt s t he f ol l ow or der .
I. Background
Z Pr odux, I nc. ( “Z Pr odux”) and MAC ar e compet i t or s i n t he
ar ena of cosmet i cs accessor i es. Thi s case cent er s on MAC’ s al l eged
i nf r i ngement of a desi gn pat ent hel d by Z Pr odux f or a makeup
pal et t e.
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
26
27
28
2
Zena Sht eysel , t he pr esi dent of Z Pr odux, i s t he named
i nvent or of U. S. Pat ent No. 642, 743 ( “t he ‘ 743 pat ent ”) , a desi gn
pat ent f or a cosmet i cs hol der . ( See Decl ar at i on of Thomas Mahl umi n
Suppor t of Mot i on, Ex. A. ) Sht eysel appl i ed f or t he desi gn pat ent
on Apr i l 14, 2010 and i t was i ssued August 2, 2011. ( I d. ) Sht eysel
subsequent l y assi gned t he pat ent t o Z Pr odux on May 17, 2012. ( I d. ,
Ex. B. ) The pat ent i ncl udes a si ngl e cl ai mf or “[ t ] he or nament al
desi gn f or t he cosmet i c hol der , as shown and descr i bed. ” ( I d. , Ex.
A at 6. ) The pat ent i ncl udes 14 f i gur es depi ct i ng, f r omvar i ous
per spect i ves, a cosmet i c hol der wi t h a cl ear t op and an empt y base.
( I d. at 6- 12) As di scussed f ur t her bel ow, t he desi gn depi ct ed has a
“book- l i ke” appear ance, wi t h a f l at spi ne and si des t hat ext end
sl i ght l y beyond t he mi ddl e par t of t he devi ce. (Id.) It has a
relatively wide rim framing the window to the compartment. (Id.)
Z Produx markets the “Z Palette,” a cosmetics palette that
resembles the ‘743 design patent and includes the text “Pat.
D642,743" on the bottom of the device. (See Id., Ex. 10, 73; Ex.
Z.) The products sold by Z Produx consist only of the Z Palette and
two types of related accessories (metal pans and metal stickers).
(Id., Ex. C (Deposition of Zena Shteysel at 8:17-10:23).)
On April 14, 2010, the same day on which Shteysel applied for
the design patent, Shteysel also applied for a utility patent for a
cosmetics holder. (I d. , Ex. K. at 180, Pat ent Appl i cat i on No. 12-
760029. ) The application claimed, among other things, a cosmetics
holder including a metal base made of magnetized metal, a recess
for receiving metal makeup containers, and a top frame “defin[ing]
a window for viewing the makeup containers that are supported on
the magnetic base, when the cover assembly is closed.” (Id. at
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
26
27
28
3
188.) Each of the application’s five claims were rejected by the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as anticipated by existing
patents. (Id. at 222-226.) The claim asserting a framed window for
viewing makeup containers while the cover assembly is closed was
rejected as obvious in view of the Liden patent, U.S. Patent No.
D597256, which has been assigned to Defendant MAC. (Id. at 224; MSJ
at 8.)
MAC markets, among other products, a cosmetic palette called
the MAC Pro Palette Large/Single (“MAC Palette”). (Complaint, DKT.
No. 1 ¶ 11.) Like the Z Palette, the MAC Palette consists of an
empty base container with clear window top. (See Mahlum Decl. Ex.
AA.) However, as discussed below, unlike the Z Palette, the MAC
Palette has edges that are flush with one another, a triangle-
shaped hinge, and a relatively narrow rim framing the window. (See
Id., Exs. M, N, and AA.)
Z Pr odux al l eges t hat MAC’ s sal e of t he MAC Pal et t e i nf r i nges
i t s ‘ 743 desi gn pat ent i n vi ol at i on of 35 U. S. C. § 27l ( a) .
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any, show “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). A party
seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the
court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions
of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v.
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
26
27
28
4
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). All reasonable inferences from
the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). If the
moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it is
entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there is
an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to
the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is warranted if a party
“fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of
an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” and material
facts are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. There is no genuine
issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
It is not the court's task “to scour the record in search of a
genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1278
(9th Cir.1996). Counsel has an obligation to lay out their support
clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F. 3d 1026, 1031
( 9t h Ci r . 2001) . The cour t “need not exami ne t he ent i r e f i l e f or
evi dence est abl i shi ng a genui ne i ssue of f act , wher e t he evi dence
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
26
27
28
5
i s not set f or t h i n t he opposi t i on paper s wi t h adequat e r ef er ences
so t hat i t coul d conveni ent l y be f ound. ” I d.
III. Discussion and Analysis
A. Validity of Patent
“A pat ent i s pr esumed t o be val i d, and t hi s pr esumpt i on can
onl y be over come by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t o t he cont r ar y. ”
Br i st ol - Myer s Squi bb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs. , I nc. , 246 F. 3d 1368,
1374 ( Fed. Ci r . 2001) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . One basi s on whi ch a
pat ent may be pr oved i nval i d i s evi dence t hat t he i nvent i on was “i n
publ i c use” mor e t han one year pr i or t o t he dat e of f i l i ng an
appl i cat i on. 35 U. S. C. 102( b) ( 2010) . Pr i or publ i c use may ser ve t o
i nval i dat e a desi gn pat ent . I n r e Mann, 861 F. 2d 1581, 1581- 82
( Fed. Ci r . 1988) .
MAC ar gues t hat t he ‘ 743 pat ent i s i nval i d because t he Z
Pal et t e desi gn was i n publ i c use mor e t han a year bef or e t he ‘ 743
pat ent appl i cat i on was f i l ed. ( MSJ at 24. ) MAC al l eges t hat t he
‘ 743 desi gn was depi ct ed i n a phot ogr aph of t he Z Pal et t e t hat was
i ncl uded i n a t r ademar k appl i cat i on f i l ed by Z Pr odux on Febr uar y
12, 2009, mor e t han a year bef or e Sht eysel f i l ed an appl i cat i on f or
t he ‘ 743 desi gn pat ent on Apr i l 14, 2010. ( I d. ; Mahl umDecl . , Ex
A. ) MAC al l eges t hat t he phot ogr aph was post ed on t he Uni t ed St at es
Pat ent and Tr ademar k Of f i ce websi t e on Febr uar y 12, 2009 and was
made avai l abl e t o t he publ i c upon r equest i n pr i nt f or m. ( MSJ at
24, ci t i ng Mahl umDecl . , Ex G. ) MAC asser t s t hat t hese al l eged
f act s demonst r at e t hat t he pat ent i s i nval i d.
Havi ng consi der ed t he evi dence bef or e i t , t he cour t f i nds t hat
t her e i s no basi s f or f i ndi ng t he ‘ 743 pat ent i nval i d. Even
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
26
27
28
6
assumi ng t he phot ogr aph was publ i cl y avai l abl e on t he dat e MAC
asser t s, a cont ent i on Z Pr odux di sput es, ( Z Pr odux’ s Sur r epl y at 1-
3) , t he di scl osur e was not suf f i ci ent t o ant i ci pat e and t her eby
i nval i dat e t he ‘ 743 pat ent .
For a prior art disclosure to be anticipatory, it must be
“‘enabling’ - i.e., it must be sufficient to permit a person having
ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.” SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2005). “Pictures and drawings may be sufficiently enabling to put
the public in the possession of the article pictured. Therefore,
such an enabling picture may be used to reject claims to the
article. However, the picture must show all the claimed structural
features and how they are put together.’ U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, § 2102.04 (citing
Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928)).
The Z Produx trademark application included one picture of the
Z Palette photographed from above. (See Mahlum Decl., Ex G.) The
device’s sides, edges, and contours are not visible. (Id.) The
photograph does not reveal numerous elements of the design which
were later reflected in the figures included in the ‘743 design
patent. Indeed, with the exception of the width of the palette’s
rims, none of the elements included in the construction of the ‘743
patent proposed by MAC are apparent in the photograph. (See Reply
at 3, citing MSJ, Ex. A; Mahlum Decl., Ex. Y.) These elements
include a “lip” extending past the edged of the cosmetic holder and
the flat spine along the back of the case. (Id.) (MAC’s proposed
construction is discussed further in the following subsection.)
Because the photograph does not contain sufficient detail to
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
26
27
28
7
constitute invalidating prior art for the ‘743 design patent, the
court must reject MAC’s contention that the patent is invalid.
B. Patent Infringement
i. Claim Construction
To determine whether a design patent is infringed, the court
must first construe the claim to the design, where appropriate, and
then compare it to the design of the accused device. OddzOn
Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1404-05 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (citing Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571,
1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
“A design patent protects only the novel, ornamental features
of the patented design,” not its functional elements. Id; see also
Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188-91 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(“[I]t is the non-functional, design aspects that are pertinent to
determinations of infringements. ... A device that copies the
utilitarian or functional features of a patented design is not an
infringement. ... [While] infringement can be found for designs
that are not identical to the patented design, such designs must be
equivalent in their ornamental, not functional, aspects.”); L.A.
Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123
(Fed.Cir.1993) (“The elements of the design may indeed serve a
utilitarian purpose, but it is the ornamental aspect that is the
basis of the design patent.”) Where a design is found to include
both functional and ornamental features, the court must “factor[]
out” the functional aspects of the design for the purposes of claim
construction. Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288,
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
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
26
27
28
8
Critical to the instant case is whether two aspects of the
palette depicted in the ‘743 patent--the clear top and empty
compartment--are ornamental and therefore protected or, instead,
functional and therefore unprotected. (See MJS at 20-24; Opp. at 8-
11.) As discussed further below, it is these elements that are the
subject of Z Produx’s infringement action. A design is deemed to be
functional “when the appearance of the claimed design is dictated
by the use or purpose of the article.” L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1117
(internal citation and question marks omitted).
MAC asserts that the clear top and empty base are analogous to
design elements found functional in OddzOn. There, the Federal
Circuit construed a design patent covering a foam football with a
tail and fin structure. 122 F.3d at 1405. The court found that the
tail and fin structure was functional rather than ornamental, and
therefore unprotected, because those features served the purpose of
enabling the football to be thrown further than a traditional foam
football. Id. MAC argues that, like the tail and fin structure, the
clear top and empty compartment depicted in the ‘743 patent are
designed to serve specific purposes, namely allowing a user to see
the contents of her palette without opening it and to customize the
palette’s contents. (MSJ at 23.) The court agrees that the analogy
to OddzOn is apt.
Z Produx argues that the clear top and empty compartment are
not dictated by design on the grounds that MAC “had plenty of
options when it came to alternative designs.” (Opp. at 9.) It
argues that the palette merely “serves the purpose of holding
cosmetics” and points to various other cosmetic palettes that also
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
26
27
28
9
hold cosmetics but do not include the same clear window and empty
base features. (Id. at 9-10.)
Z Produx’s argument is unavailing because it mistakenly
assumes that it is the functionality of the device as a whole,
rather than the functionality of the elements at issue, that
matters for the construction of a design patent. Indeed, in the
course of finding that the tail and fin structure on the foam
football in OddzOn wer e f unct i onal , t he Feder al Ci r cui t
speci f i cal l y r ej ect ed t he appr oach Z Pr odux now asks t he cour t t o
adopt :
OddzOn ar gues t hat t he shape of a f oot bal l wi t h an ar r ow- l i ke
t ai l i s an or nament al f eat ur e because “i t i s not r equi r ed f or
a t ossi ng bal l . ” Whi l e OddzOn cor r ect l y st at es t hat t her e ar e
many ways of desi gni ng “t ossi ng bal l s, ” i t i s undi sput ed t hat
t he bal l i n quest i on i s speci f i cal l y desi gned t o be t hr own
l i ke a f oot bal l , yet t r avel f ar t her t han a t r adi t i onal f oam
f oot bal l . I t i s t he f oot bal l shape combi ned wi t h f i ns on a
t ai l t hat gi ve t he desi gn t hese f unct i onal qual i t i es. The t ai l
and f i ns on OddzOn' s desi gn add st abi l i t y i n t he same manner
as do t he t ai l and f i ns f ound on dar t s or r ocket s. They ar e no
l ess f unct i onal si mpl y because “t ossi ng bal l s” can be desi gned
wi t hout t hem.
122 F.3d 1406. The court went on to explain that the functional
characteristics limit the scope of the protected subject matter.
Id. The reasoning in OddzOn is controlling for the instant case.
Just as a tail and fins are not necessary to design a “tossing
ball,” a clear cover and empty base are not necessary to design a
cosmetics pallette. Yet in both cases the additional elements bring
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
26
27
28
2
The court gives little weight to subsequent assertions, made
by Ms. Shteysel in a declaration without assertions of factual
support, that the clear cover and empty compartment serve
aesthetic functions of making the palette look “more visually
appealing” and “uncluttered.” (DKT No. 38, Ex. 12, at ¶¶ 9-10. “A
conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any
supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of
material fact.” Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Publ'g Clearing House,
Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Fed. Trade Comm'n
v. Publ'g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.
1997)).
10
added functionality to the product, rendering them functional,
rather than ornamental, features.
Indeed, Z Produx has itself emphasized the functionality of
the features at issue. In explaining why consumers like the Z
Palette, Shteysel pointed to the functionality of the clear cover
and empty base, stating: “[Customers] like the window and that you
can see through it. They like that you can customize it anyway you
want so you can fit any size product, any brand, all in one
palette, interchangeable.” (Deposition of Zena Shteysel in Support
of Opposition at 94.)
2
(See also Shteysel Dep. at 103, 105, 109,
110.)
Moreover, the clear cover and empty base appear to be
essential for the functionality that these elements offer. As MAC
points out, there appears to be no other way to enable a user to
view the contents of her palette without opening it but to make the
cover see-through or to enable the customization of the palette’s
contents without leaving the compartment empty. (Reply at 10.)
These considerations support a finding that the clear top and empty
base are “dictated by the use or purpose of the article,” 988 F.2d
at 1117, and are therefore functional rather than ornamental.
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
26
27
28
11
The finding that the clear window and empty base are
functional rather than ornamental is further supported by the fact
these features appear to be protected by existing utility patents.
As discussed above, at the time that Shteysel applied for what
became the ‘743 design patent, she filed an unsuccessful
application for a utility patent. The application claimed a
cosmetic holder with, among other elements, a “frame in order to
define a window for viewing the makeup containers.” (Mahlum Decl.,
Ex. K at 188.) The patent office rejected the window claim as
obvious in view of the Liden utility patent (Patent No. D597256),
which claimed a top frame with “a window for viewing the makeup
containers when the cover is in a closed position.” (Id. at 224-
25.) As noted, the Liden utility patent, which looks very similar
to the ‘743 design patent, has been assigned to MAC. (MSJ at 8.)
The patent office likewise rejected the other four claims in
Shteysel’s utility patent application, which described a cosmetic
holder with a magnetic base with a recess for receiving metal
makeup containers, in light of the Jimbo patent (Patent No.
5005697). (Id. at 222-24.) The existence of these prior utility
patents covering the elements at issue further indicate that the
clear top and empty base elements are functional.
In sum, the facts in evidence clearly demonstrate that the
clear cover and empty base are functional, not ornamental, and thus
are not protected under the ‘743 design patent and may not form the
basis for an infringement action. Having reached this conclusion,
the court must “factor out” the clear window and empty base
elements for the purposes of claim construction. See Richardson,
597 F.3d at 1293.
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
26
27
28
12
The court next must examine what remaining relevant design
features are ornamental and construe the claimed design
accordingly. MAC proposes the following construction of the ‘743
patent design for the purposes of its motion:
The ‘743 claims the ornamental features of a cosmetic holder
design that includes a “lip” extending past the edge of the
cosmetic holder, with a flat or flushed spine or hinge along
the back of the case, and with the overall proportions
depicted in its drawings.
(Reply at 3, citing MSJ, Ex. A; Mahlum Decl., Ex Y.)
Z Produx urges the court to refrain from providing any
description of the elements of the claimed design. Borrowing
language from the ‘743 design patent (which contains no verbal
description of the patented design), it asks the court to adopt the
construction: “an ornamental design for a cosmetics palette as
shown in Figure 1.” (Opp. at 8.) In advancing this position, Z
Produx relies on Federal Circuit authority cautioning trial courts
to avoid excessive reliance on a detailed verbal description of a
patent infringement. Id. (citing Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa,
Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). However, neither
Egyptian Goddess nor any other case of which this court is aware
has articulated the position that courts must refrain from any
verbal description of the elements whatsoever. Indeed, the Federal
Circuit specifically rejected this position in Richardson, raising
the question of “how a court could effectively construe design
claims, where necessary, in a way other than by describing the
features showing the drawings.” 597 F.3d at 1293.
As discussed further below, the court takes the figures
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
26
27
28
13
included in the ‘743 design patent as its touchstones for its
infringement analysis. With that in mind, however, the court finds
it necessary to provide a brief verbal description of the relevant
claimed ornamental elements of the ‘743 design. It further finds,
based on its own careful review of the ‘743 patent, that MAC’s
proposed characterization of the design is fair and accurate. It
therefore adopts that description for the purposes of its
infringement analysis.
ii. Infringement
Havi ng const r ued t he scope and r el evant meani ng of t he ‘ 743
cl ai m, t he cour t must now compar e t he cl ai mt o t he accused desi gn
t o det er mi ne whet her t her e has been any i nf r i ngement . See El mer v.
I CC Fabr i cat i ng, 67 F. 3d 1571, 1577 ( Fed. Ci r . 1995) . A desi gn
pat ent i s i nf r i nged i f t he pat ent ed desi gn, or any col or abl e
i mi t at i on t her eof , i s appl i ed wi t hout aut hor i zat i on t o any ar t i cl e
of manuf act ur e f or t he pur poses of sal e. 35 U. S. C. § 289; Goodyear
Ti r e & Rubber Co. v. Her cul es Ti r e & Rubber Co. , 162 F. 3d 1113,
1116- 17 ( Fed. Ci r . 1998) . To det er mi ne i f an i nf r i ngement has
occur r ed, t he cour t appl i es t he “or di nar y obser ver t est , ” wher eby
t he cour t must det er mi ne “whet her an or di nar y obser ver , f ami l i ar
wi t h t he pr i or ar t and desi gns, woul d be decei ved i nt o bel i evi ng
t hat t he accused pr oduct i s t he same as t he pat ent ed desi gn. ”
Cr ocs, 598 F. 3d 1303. The f ocus of t he anal ysi s i s t he “over al l
i mpr essi on of t he cl ai med or nament al f eat ur es” r at her t han “smal l
di f f er ences i n i sol at i on. ” I d. at 1303- 04.
I n t he pr esent case, t he cour t f i nds t hat t her e i s no t r i abl e
quest i on as t o whet her t he MAC Pal et t e i nf r i nges t he cl ai mabl e
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
26
27
28
14
or nament al el ement s of t he ‘ 743 desi gn. Z Pr odux has poi nt ed t o
onl y t wo el ement s of t he ‘ 743 desi gn whi ch i t al l eges ar e i nf r i nged
by t he MAC Pal et t e: ( 1) t he cl ear cover and ( 2) t he empt y base.
See, e. g. ( Mahl umDecl . , Ex. S at I nt er r og. Resp. No. 10
( descr i bi ng t he cl ai med or nament al f eat ur es i n MAC accused pr oduct s
as “cont ai n[ i ng] a cl ear wi ndow and al so f eat ur [ i ng] an open empt y
base desi gn, j ust l i ke t he Z Pal et t e”) and Nos. 3 and 4 ( descr i bi ng
or nament al desi gn el ement s of t he ‘ 743 pat ent as “a cl ear wi ndow,
empt y base, and …r ect angul ar and squar e desi gns”) ; Sht eysel Decl .
( t est i f yi ng t hat t hat MAC Pal et t e “l ooks l i ke mi ne, and i t has t he
same f eat ur es, cl ear wi ndow, empt y base”) . However , as di scussed i n
t he pr ecedi ng sect i on, because t hese f eat ur es ar e f unct i onal , t hey
ar e not ent i t l ed t o pr ot ect i on under t he ‘ 743 desi gn pat ent and
must be f act or ed out f or t he pur poses of i nf r i ngement anal ysi s.
Thus, Z Pr odux has f ai l ed t o poi nt t o any cl ai mabl e desi gn aspect s
of ‘ 743 t hat ar e i nf r i nged by t he MAC Pal et t e.
Mor eover , a compar i son of t he ‘ 743 desi gn wi t h t he MAC Pal et t e
r eveal s t hat , once t he cl ear cover and empt y base el ement s ar e
f act or ed out , t he desi gns bear l i t t l e r esembl ance. MAC has poi nt ed
t o sever al ar eas whi ch t he cour t agr ees bear consi der at i on.
Fi r st , t he MAC Pal et t e has an over al l sl i mmer l ook t han t he
‘ 743 pat ent and i t s Z Pal et t e embodi ment , owi ng t o t he desi gns’
di f f er i ng pr opor t i ons. MAC not es, and Z Pr odux does not cont est ,
t hat t he wi ndow pane i n t he ‘ 743 desi gn makes up 67%of t he squar e
i nches of t he l i d, wi t h t he opaque r i mmaki ng up t he r emai ni ng 33%.
( Oct . 7, 2013 Mahl umDecl . ¶ 3. ) Si mi l ar l y, t he wi ndow pane of t he
Z Pal et t e makes up 61%of t he squar e i nches of t he l i d, wi t h 39%
made up by t he opaque r i m. ( Mahl umDecl . ¶ 4. ) By cont r ast , t he
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
26
27
28
15
wi ndow pane of t he MAC Pal et t e makes up a subst ant i al l y gr eat er 84%
of t he l i d, as compar ed t o 16. 2%made up by t he r i m. ( I d. ¶ 5. ) The
di f f er i ng pr opor t i ons make t he pr oduct s cl ear l y di st i ngui shabl e
upon f i r st gl ance.
Second, t he ‘ 743 pat ent cl ai ms a cosmet i c hol der wi t h a l i p
t hat ext ends beyond t he edge of t he cosmet i c hol der , gi vi ng t he
desi gn a book- l i ke appear ance. ( See i d. , Ex. A, Fi gs. 1, 4, 7, 8,
11. ) The l i p i s al so pr esent i n t he Z Pal et t e. ( See i d. , Ex. 9. ) By
cont r ast , t he MAC Pal et t e has edges t hat ar e f l ush.
Thi r d, t he ‘ 743 pat ent cl ai ms a desi gn wi t h t wo seams or
r i dges al ong each si de, i n addi t i on t o t he one wher e t he case
separ at es, cont r i but i ng f ur t her t o t he desi gn’ s book- l i ke
appear ance. ( See i d. , Ex. A, Fi gs. 1, 4, 7, 8, 11. ) The MAC
Pal l et e, cont r ast i ngl y, has no addi t i onal seams.
Four t h, t he ‘ 743 desi gn has a hi nge t hat i s f l ush wi t h t he
cosmet i c case, r esembl i ng t he bi nder of a book. ( See i d. , Ex. A,
Fi gs. 4, 5. ) By cont r ast , t he MAC Pal et t e has a di st i nct i ve
t r i angul ar r ai sed hi nge. ( Mahl umDecl . , Ex. M. )
Z Pr odux ur ges t hat t he cour t not consi der such f eat ur es as
t he “i ndi vi dual cor ner s, l i ps, seams, spi ne, and at t r i but es” of t he
pr oduct s. ( Opp. at 12. ) Z Pr odux ar gues t hat consi der at i on of such
el ement s i s i mper mi ssi bl e i n l i ght of t he Feder al Ci r cui t ’ s
abandonment of t he “poi nt of novel t y” t est . ( Opp. at 12. ) Under
t hi s now di scar ded t est , i n or der t o f i nd i nf r i ngement , af t er
compar i ng t he i t ems t hr ough t he eyes of an or di nar y obser ver
wher eby, t he cour t was r equi r ed t o at t r i but e t he si mi l ar i t y t o
novel t y t hat di st i ngui shes t he pat ent ed devi ce f r ompr i or ar t . See
Egypt i an Goddess at 543 F. 3d at 676- 77. However , t he cour t does not
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
26
27
28
16
consi der such desi gn el ement s under t he “poi nt of novel t y” t est ,
but i nst ead r ef er s t o t hese el ement s sol el y i n t he cour se of
expl ai ni ng t hat - - once uncl ai mabl e f eat ur es ar e f act or ed out - - an
or di nar y obser ver coul d not conf use t he t wo pr oduct s.
Z Pr odux has submi t t ed quot at i ons f r omonl i ne di scussi on
f or ums whi ch i t asser t s show t hat consumer s ar e conf used by t he
si mi l ar i t y bet ween t he Z Pal et t e and t he MAC Pal et t e. ( See
Opposi t i on at 17- 18; Decl ar at i on of Rober t Kat z i n Suppor t of
Opposi t i on, Exs. 7, 6, 7, 8, 9. ) However , l eavi ng asi de t he
quest i on of whet her t he evi dence i s admi ssi bl e, t he evi dence does
not cr eat e a t r i abl e i ssue because none of t he mat er i al s pr esent ed
t end t o show t hat consumer s per cei ved t he MAC Pal et t e as si mi l ar t o
t he Z Pal l et t e because of shar ed or nament al f eat ur es t hat ar e
pr ot ect ed by t he ‘ 743 desi gn pat ent , r at her t han because of t he
shar ed cl ear cover and empt y base, whi ch ar e not pr ot ect ed by t he
pat ent . See OdzzOn at 1406 ( “Because t he accused pr oduct s ar e
cl ear l y si mi l ar t o OddzOn' s desi gn i n t er ms of t hei r f oot bal l shape
and t hei r t ai l and f i ns, i t was i ncumbent on OddzOn t o submi t
evi dence est abl i shi ng t hat t he or nament al aspect s of t hei r
f oot bal l - wi t h- t ai l - and- f i n combi nat i on account ed f or t he si mi l ar i t y
per cei ved by t he sur vey par t i ci pant s. ”)
I n sum, t he evi dence bef or e t he cour t does not cr eat e a
t r i abl e quest i on as t o whet her MAC i nf r i nged Z Pr odux’ s ‘ 743 desi gn
pat ent t hr ough i t s sal e of t he MAC Pal et t e.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
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
26
27
28
17
IV. Conclusion
For t he r easons set f or t h above, t he cour t GRANTS Def endant
Make- up Ar t Cosmet i cs, I nc. ’ s mot i on f or summar y j udgment .
I T I S SO ORDERED.
Dat ed: November 5, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful