Skull Shaver v. Ideavillage - MTD

Case 2:18-cv-03836-MCA-MAH Document 7 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 22
BESHADA FARNESE LLP

Donald A. Beshada (DAB 2909)
108 Wanaque Avenue
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey 07442
Telephone: (973) 831-9910
Facsimile: (973) 831-7371
Email: dbeshada@gmail.com
Attorney for Defendant

Ideavillage Products Corporation
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION No. 2:18-cv-03836
v.
Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.D.J.
Hon. Michael A. Hammer, U.S.M.J.
IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS
CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
DEFENDANT IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF SKULL SHAVER, LLC’S COMPLAINT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 4, 2018, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, Defendant Ideavillage Products Corporation (“IDV” or “Defendant”) will, and hereby
does, move before Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo, in Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo, in Courtroom 4A at
the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Newark, New Jersey 07101,
for entry of an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6) dismissing the Complaint of
Plaintiff Skull Shaver, LLC (“SS” or “Plaintiff”).
1
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, in support of the motion, IDV will rely upon
the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities in support, on the complete files and
records in this action, and on such further oral and documentary evidence which may be
submitted at the hearing, and upon any further evidence the Court may receive.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that IDV requests oral argument on the return date
of this motion if opposition is timely filed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Donald A. Beshada
BESHADA FARNESE LLP
108 Wanaque Avenue
Telephone: (973) 831-9910
Facsimile: (973) 831-7371
Dated: May 2, 2018
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 2, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document to be filed with the Clerk of Court and served on all counsel of record via CM/ECF.
Donald A. Beshada
Case 2:18-cv-03836-MCA-MAH Document 7-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 25
BESHADA FARNESE LLP

108 Wanaque Avenue
Telephone: (973) 831-9910
Facsimile: (973) 831-7371


SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
DEFENDANT IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT

OF ITS IN MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF SKULL SHAVER, LLC’S COMPLAINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 2
1. Standard of Review ....................................................................................... 2
2. SS Fails to State a Claim for Design Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C.

Sections 271 and/or 289................................................................................. 3
i. Legal Standard Governing Claims of Infringement of Design Patents .... 3
ii. The 060 Design Patent’s Drawings and Flawless Contain Distinct
Designs .................................................................................................. 4
iii. The 060 Design Patent and Flawless Are Not “Substantially the Same”
to One Familiar with the Prior Art......................................................... 9
III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 14
-i-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................. 3
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................2, 3
Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dutailer, Inc.,

393 F.3d 1378 (Fed.Cir.2005) ................................................................................2, 4
Egyptian Goddess, Inc., v. Swisa, Inc.,

543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................4, 9
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,

578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................2, 3
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co.,
162 F.3d 1113 (Fed.Cir. 1998) ...............................................................................3, 4
Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner International LLC,

437 F.3d 1383 (Fed.Cir.2006) ................................................................................... 9
MSA Prods., Inc. v. Nifty Home Prods., Inc.,

883 F.Supp.2d 535 (D.N.J. 2012) .............................................................................. 2
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,

998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993) .................................................................................... 2
Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co. v. Sunbeam, Prods Inc.,

665 F. Supp. 2d 357(S.D.N.Y. 2009) aff’d 374 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......... 4
RULES
FED. R. CIV. P.
8(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................2, 3
12(b)(6)................................................................................................................ 3, 14
-ii-
BESHADA FARNESE LLP

108 Wanaque Avenue
Telephone: (973) 831-9910
Facsimile: (973) 831-7371


SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
DEFENDANT IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT

OF ITS IN MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF SKULL SHAVER, LLC’S COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Skull Shaver, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “SS”) alleges that Ideavillage Products
Corporation’s (“IDV”) Flawless Legs product (“Flawless”) infringes upon United States Design
Patent 693,060 (the “’060 Design Patent”) held by SS. See Complaint, at ¶ 7. As a matter of
law, Flawless does not. Indeed, a simple review of the ‘060 Patent and Flawless demonstrates
that Flawless lacks five distinct elements as required by the ‘060 Patent. There can be no
substantial similarity between the Flawless and the ‘060 Patent because Flawless lacks five
1
elements required in the ‘060. In addition, each of the elements from the ‘060 Patent have been
disclosed in the expired prior art.
It is well-settled that Design patents are entitled to almost no scope beyond the precise
content of the design patent’s drawings. See, e.g., Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v.
Dutailer, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2005). It is also well-settled that where, on the face
of the drawings, the products have design differences, claims of design patent infringement are
properly dismissed at the pleading stage. See, e.g., MSA Prods., Inc. v. Nifty Home Prods., Inc.,
883 F.Supp.2d 535, 540 (D.N.J. 2012). As set forth herein, such is the case here.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
1. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As the
Supreme Court explained in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the
factual allegations set forth in a complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Id. at 555. In affirming that the Twombly standard applies to all motions to
dismiss, the Supreme Court subsequently explained, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all
of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Moreover, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief
survives a motion to dismiss.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).
In deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must determine “whether
the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for
relief.” Id. at 211 (internal quotations omitted). In so-determining, the Court considers the
allegations contained in the Complaint, the exhibits attached, and matters of public record. See
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1996 (3d Cir. 1993).
2
In design patent infringement cases, that includes the patent at issue, as well as the alleged
infringing product.
To prevent dismissal, the complaint must set out “sufficient factual matter” to show that
the claim is facially plausible. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. at 1949
(2009) (citing Twombly at 556). However, “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the Court
to infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but is has not
‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (citing Rule
8(a)(2))(emphasis added). As the Third Circuit observed in Fowler, “[a]fter Iqbal, it is clear that
conclusory or ‘bar bones’ allegations will no longer survive a motion to dismiss; ‘threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, support by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.’” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210.
Here, SS’s four-page complaint, which incorporates both its patent and Flawless, simply
fails to demonstrate that Flawless infringes the ‘060 Design Patent. Accordingly, the Complaint
should be dismissed.
2. SS Fails to State a Claim for Design Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C.

Sections 271 and/or 289
i. Legal Standard Governing Claims of Infringement of Design Patents
A design patent is infringed by the unauthorized manufacture, use, or sale of the article
embodying the patented design or any colorable imitation thereof. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., 162 F.3d 1113, 1116-17 (Fed.Cir. 1998). Design patents are
strictly construed and are entitled to almost no protection beyond the precise content of the
3
design patent’s drawings. See Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dutailer, Inc., 393 F.3d
1378, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2005).
In order to determine if an accused object infringes a design patent, Courts first look at
the design patent’s drawings, and compare them to the alleged infringing object. See Egyptian
Goddess, Inc., v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If the drawings and the alleged
infringing product contain distinct designs that are not “substantially the same,” then there is no
infringement. Id. However, where a Court determines that the drawings and the alleged
infringing product are “substantially the same,” it compares the 2 products with the prior art to
determine if there is infringement of the design patent at issue. Id.
In other words, there are two levels to design patent infringement analysis: a level-one
analysis to determine if comparison to the prior art is even necessary, and a second level analysis
that accounts for prior art in less obvious cases. Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co. v. Sunbeam, Prods
Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 357, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) aff’d 374 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Viewed under either standard, it is clear that Flawless does not infringe the ‘060 Design
Patent.
ii. There is no substantial similarity because Flawless lacks five elements

that are required by the ‘060 Patent
At minimum there are at least five (5) design elements that are required and lend to the
overall appearance of the ‘060 Patent. IdeaVillage’s Flawless Legs is missing each and every of
the five elements required in the ‘060 Patent. In addition, the overall shape of the handle of the
Flawless Legs is completely different from the ‘060 Patent.
In this case, a comparison of Legs with the ‘060 Patent clearly shows that Skull Shaver
and Flawless Legs are dissimilar. The ‘060 Patent and its drawings requires an elongated neck
which allows for the underside of the handle to have two concave grooves for placing a user’s
4
fingers. The Flawless Legs does not have these two critical design elements. The ‘060 Patent
and its drawings requires a handle with at least two pronounced concave insets situated on
opposing sides of the handle. Flawless Legs does not have two pronounced concave insets on
opposing sides of its handle. In contrast, the Flawless Legs has a grip wrapping around and
covering about three-quarters (¾’s) of the handle’s sides. The ‘060 Patent and its drawings
requires a collar having opposing ends, one end attached to the neck and another end attached to
a contact element (shaving device) with a flat top surface. In contrast, Flawless Legs lacks a
collar (attached to a neck and contact element) and its handle is directly attached to a contact
element with a rounded top surface. Finally, the shapes of the handles and the contact elements
are distinctly different from one another.
These distinctions and substantial differences between Flawless Legs and the ‘060 Patent
are evident and can be seen in the comparison of the ‘060 Patent drawings and the design of the
Flawless Legs are set forth below:
‘060 Patent Flawless Legs
Fig. 1 of the ‘060 Patent

Fig. 1 requires a device with a handle that Flawless Legs does not have two insets or two
has two pronounced concave insets on the concave grooves on the handle. Flawless Legs
sides and concave grooves on the bottom. does not have an extended neck or collar
The handle is connected to the contact connecting the handle with the contact element.
element via an extended neck and collar. In contrast to the ‘060 Patent, the Flawless Legs
The contact element has a flat top surface. has a handle directly connected to the contact
element which has a rounded top surface.
5

Fig. 2 requires a handle with pronounced In contrast, Flawless Legs does not have two
concave insets on the sides, two concave pronounced concave insets, two concave grooves
grooves on the bottom, and the handle has an on its bottomside and an extended neck and
extended neck and collar to connect to the collar. The Flawless Legs also has a handle
contact element. directly attached to the contact element.

Fig. 3 requires a handle that has a rounded or In contrast, Flawless Legs has handle with a
essentially egg shape that tapers from wider basically uniform width from front to back of the
in the back to narrower in the front. handle, with a smooth squared off shape with
slightly rounded corners, a curved top side,
slightly curved sides, and a flattened or straight
backside.
6

Fig. 4 requires a contact element with four Flawless Legs has four shaving heads that are
shaving heads that form a cross where the arranged in a generally square pattern with
rows of shaving heads are offset. Fig. 4 also rounded edges and sides. Flawless Legs has very
requires deep insets between the shaving shallow round insets between the outside of the
heads that are nearly 90 degree angles. shaving heads.

Fig. 5 requires a shaving apparatus with a In contrast, Flawless Legs has a handle that is
handle and a contact element that are directly attached to the contact element, and is
connected by an extended neck and collar. missing an extended neck and collar. The
Fig. 5 also requires a rounded top side of the handle of Flawless Legs has a different shape
handle, a side with a pronounced concave than the ‘060 Patent and are missing the
inset, and a bottom side that has concave pronounced concave insets on the sides and the
grooves that run across the width of the bottom lacks two concave grooves. In contrast
underside of the handle. The contact element to the pronounced concave insets, Flawless Legs
has a generally flat top surface and is has a grip which wraps around ¾ of the handle.
generally thin. In contrast to the flat top surface of the contact
element, Flawless Legs has a contact element
that has a rounded top surface and is chunky.
7

Fig. 6 requires an extended neck and collar In contrast, Flawless Legs does not have an
connecting the handle to the contact element. extended neck, a collar and two pronounced
The handle has two pronounced concave concave insets on the side of its handle. Flawless
insets and a generally straight bottom. Legs has a handle directly attached to the contact
element and its bottom is rounded.

Like Fig. 6, Fig. 7 requires an extended neck In contrast, Flawless Legs does not have an
and collar connecting the handle to the extended neck, a collar and two pronounced
contact element. The handle has two concave insets on the side of its handle. Flawless
pronounced concave insets and generally Legs has a handle directly attached to the contact
straight bottom. element and its bottom is rounded.
Based upon the above analysis, and the standard for finding infringement in Egyptian
Goddess, there can be no finding that the Flawless Legs infringes the single claim of the ‘060
Patent. Given that the ‘060 Design Patent must be strictly construed, the five missing elements of
the ‘060 Patent demonstrate, conclusively, that the patent and the product are not “substantially
8
the same” on their faces. For that reason alone, SS’s Complaint should be dismissed as a matter
of law.
iii. The ‘060 Design Patent and Flawless Are Not “Substantially the
Same” because the five missing elements are in the Prior Art
Even assuming that the chart on pp. 6-9, somehow, does not demonstrate distinct designs
between the ‘060 Design Patent drawings and Flawless, SS’s Complaint still should be dismissed
under the second level analysis of design patents set forth in Egyptian Goddess. This analysis is
called the “ordinary observer test.” The “ordinary observer” test requires the comparison of the
two designs from the view point of the ordinary observer conversant in the prior art, to determine
whether the patented design as a whole is substantially the same as the accused design. See
Egyptian Goddess, supra, 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir., 2008); Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner
International LLC, 437 F.3d 1383, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2006). Under that test, the similarity between
the accused device and the patented design must stem from the features that distinguish the
patented invention from the prior art. Id. Here, there are little, if any, distinguishing features of
the ‘060 Design Patent when viewed against the prior art. In paragraph 11 of the Complaint,
Plaintiff states that both the Flawless Legs and the ‘060 Patent have “essentially egg shaped
handles”, “elongated recesses along the sides”, and “four rotating blades at the bottom.” These
are the elements that SS claims are unique to the ‘060 Design Patent. However, that is not
accurate. As can be seen from the below analysis, each of these features is clearly in the prior art
and therefore cannot be design elements that are covered by the single claim of the ‘060 Patent.1
Specifically:
1. A review of Fig. 1 (shown below) U.S. Patent No. 676,604 reveals a prior art
1
Under the “ordinary observer” test, the similarity between the accused device and the
patented design must stem from the features that distinguish the patented invention from the
prior art NOT from features that are in the prior art. Egyptian Goddess, supra, 543 F.3d at 678.
9
device that has a handle with the same “essentially egg shaped handle” of the ‘060 Patent
as well as the same type of extended neck connection to a contact element, it also has a
contact element with a flat top surface and a collar like the ‘060 Patent.
‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. 676,604
2. A review of FIG. 4, 5, and 7 (shown below) of U.S. Patent No. D569,106 reveals
a prior art device that has a handle with the same “essentially egg shaped handle”, and rounded
insets or “elongated recesses along the sides of the handle”.
‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. D569,106
10
‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. D569,106
3. A review of FIG.s 2, 3, and 10 (shown below) of U.S. Patent No. 1,769,872 reveals a
prior art device that has a handle with rounded insets or “elongated recesses along the sides of
the handle” and rounded insets on the bottom side of the handle.
11
‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. 1,769,872
4. A review of FIG. 7 (shown below) of U.S. Patent No. 4,089,110 reveals a prior art
device that has “four rotating blades”.
12
5. A review of FIG. 3 (shown below) of U.S. Patent No. 7,020,965 reveals a prior art
device that has “four rotating blades”.
The above prior art clearly demonstrates how narrowly the ‘060 Patent must be read. In
sum, the ‘060 Design Patent’s “essentially egg shaped handle”, “elongated recesses along the
sides of the handle”, and “four rotating blades” are clearly disclosed in the above prior art. In
light of these similarities, and how narrowly the ‘060 Patent must be read, no reasonable
ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing Flawless Legs is
the same as the design depicted in the ‘060 Design Patent.
Furthermore, at minimum, five of the essential design elements required by the ‘060
Patent are not present in Flawless Legs: 1) an extended neck and 2) collar connecting the handle
to the contact element, 3) at least two pronounced concave insets on the side of the handle, 4) at
least two concave grooves on the bottom side of the handle, and 5) a generally flat topside of the
contact element. In addition, all 5 of these elements can be found in the prior art. For these
reasons, SS’s Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
13
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IDV respectfully requests that this Court dismiss SS’s
Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Respectfully submitted,
BESHADA FARNESE LLP
108 Wanaque Avenue
Telephone: (973) 831-9910
Facsimile: (973) 831-7371
Dated: May 2, 2018
14
Donald A. Beshada
BESHADA FARNESE LLP

108 Wanaque Avenue
Telephone: (973) 831-9910
Facsimile: (973) 831-7371


SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the Motion of Defendant
IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORPORATION (“IDV”) to dismiss the Plaintiff SKULL
SHAVER, LLC’S Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and
the Court having considered the submissions of the parties in this matter, and oral argument if
any; and for good cause shown,
IT IS ON THIS _______ day of _____________, 2018, ORDERED that IDV’S Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. __________________________________
Madeline Cox Arelo, U.S.D.J.
1
Donald A. Beshada

Skull Shaver v. Ideavillage - MTD

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

Skull Shaver v. Ideavillage - MTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:18-cv-03836-MCA-MAH Document 7 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 22

BESHADA FARNESE LLP

Attorney for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

DEFENDANT IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION

Plaintiff Skull Shaver, LLC (“SS” or “Plaintiff”).

of this motion if opposition is timely filed.

Dated: May 2, 2018

BESHADA FARNESE LLP

Attorney for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

DEFENDANT IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 2

1. Standard of Review ....................................................................................... 2

2. SS Fails to State a Claim for Design Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C.

i. Legal Standard Governing Claims of Infringement of Design Patents .... 3

III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 14

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dutailer, Inc.,

Egyptian Goddess, Inc., v. Swisa, Inc.,

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,

Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner International LLC,

MSA Prods., Inc. v. Nifty Home Prods., Inc.,

Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,

Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co. v. Sunbeam, Prods Inc.,

BESHADA FARNESE LLP

Attorney for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SKULL SHAVER, LLC,

DEFENDANT IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT

disclosed in the expired prior art.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v.

suffice.’” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210.

2. SS Fails to State a Claim for Design Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C.

i. Legal Standard Governing Claims of Infringement of Design Patents

1378, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2005).

determine if there is infringement of the design patent at issue. Id.

ii. There is no substantial similarity because Flawless lacks five elements

Flawless Legs is completely different from the ‘060 Patent.

are distinctly different from one another.

Flawless Legs are set forth below:

‘060 Patent Flawless Legs

Fig. 1 of the ‘060 Patent

‘060 Patent Flawless Legs

Fig. 2 of the ‘060 Patent

Fig. 3 of the ‘060 Patent

‘060 Patent Flawless Legs

Fig. 4 of the ‘060 Patent

Fig. 5 of the ‘060 Patent

‘060 Patent Flawless Legs

Fig. 6 of the ‘060 Patent

Fig. 7 of the ‘060 Patent

‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. 676,604

insets or “elongated recesses along the sides of the handle”.

‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. D569,106

‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. D569,106

‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. 1,769,872

device that has “four rotating blades”.

‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. 4,089,110

device that has “four rotating blades”.

‘060 Patent U.S. Patent No. 7,020,965

IT IS ON THIS _ day of _______, 2018, ORDERED that IDV’S Motion to