by Dennis Crouch
Super-Sparkly Safety Stuff v. Skyline (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Apart from the Plaintiff’s fabulous name, this case involves the defendant’s catch-phrase “bling-it-on!”; photos of celebrity models; personal weapons (pepper spray); AND a design patent!
Both of these companies take the approach that a can of pepper-spray should be a fashion-accessory. Skyline’s catch-phrase is “Bling it On!” while Super-Sparkly Safety Stuff doesn’t need more than its company name. The Patent at issue here is Super-Sparkly’s Design Patent No. D731,172 titled “rhinestone covered container for pepper spray canister.” In the images below, you can compare the patented design (left) with Skyline’s accused product (right). I have also included an image of a prior art rhinestone cover that was given-out at the Oscars a few years ago.
One thing to note here is that the patented design requires rhinestones on the bottom of the cannister. Neither the accused product nor the prior art include those bottom-rhinestones. Based upon that distinction, the district court awarded partial summary judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed:
The district court did not err in concluding that that this difference precludes a finding of infringement under the ordinary observer test. . . .
The ’172 patent claims a very simple design, in which rhinestones are applied to two surfaces of a canister: the vertical cylinder and the bottom. Removing the rhinestones from one of these surfaces—the bottom—is a significant departure from the claimed design. The ’172 patent and the accused design are thus plainly dissimilar. . . . Even assuming that the two designs are not “plainly dissimilar,” a comparison with the prior art makes clear that the accused design does not infringe the ’172 patent. Although there do not appear to be “many examples of similar prior art designs,” the prior art “Pepperface” reference, dating from 2006, was widely marketed and endorsed by various celebrities. Its design has rhinestones around the majority of the canister, but not on the top (near the spray nozzle) or bottom of the cylinder. Per Egyptian Goddess, then, the Pepperface design highlights that the key difference between the ’172 patent and the accused design is that the bottom of the cylinder is decorated with rhinestones.
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Affirmed.
Civil Procedure moment: Here, the non-infringement was only partial summary judgment because other claims remained pending in the case–namely, Skyline filed unfair competition counterclaims. Under R. 54(b), partial summary judgment is not immediately appealable because it is not a “final judgment.” However, the rule allows the district court to sever-off that portion of the case and enter final judgment “if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason to delay.” This is effectively an alternate mechanism for certifying an interlocutory question for appeal. The district court took those steps here, and the Federal Circuit agreed that “the case was properly certified” and so heard the appeal.
Before the district court, the plaintiff had asked the court to delay the summary judgment ruling and instead permit more discovery under R. 56(d). The district court denied that request and the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion. In particular, the appellate panel found that none of the additional discovery sought by the patentee “has any bearing on the ordinary observer test for design patent infringement.”