The missing claim limitation of the groove also defeats the plaintiffs’ claim of infringement by doctrine of equivalents. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d at 1538 (Fed. If one claim limitation is totally absent from the accused item there can be no infringement as a matter of law. As to the doctrine of equivalents it has been declared by the Federal Circuit to require an equivalent counterpart for each claim limitation. The absence of the groove is sufficient to defeat the plaintiffs’ claim of literal infringement. Even if the “groove†is considered a similar structure it doesn’t perform the same function as in the plaintiffs’ patent. The court determined that the groove defined in the patent and the “groove†in the Black Radiance packaging is not a groove by definition but an indentation. The plaintiffs contend that the absent element is found in the two step portions of the Black Radiance package. The court determined that the groove specified in claim 1 of the plaintiffs’ patent is missing from the Black Radiance packaging. However, the Court found that there is at least one element that is missing from the Black Radiance packaging. The plaintiffs’ contend that all of the elements are present in the Black Radiance compact. The parties dispute whether Black Radiance contains all of the elements of the plaintiffs’ patent.
The Black Radiance does not infringe on the plaintiffs’ patent and therefore summary judgment is granted. Doctrine of equivalents infringement provides that the item performs substantially the same overall function or work, in substantially the same way, to obtain substantially the same overall result. Literal infringement requires that all of the patents claims must be present in the infringing item. A patent may also be infringed upon if that patent is literally infringed upon or infringed upon under doctrine of equivalents. Patent infringement requires the determination of whether the claims of a patent “read on†the product accused of infringement. The plaintiffs indicated that Pavion’s Black Radiance compact was an infringing product.ĭoes Pavion’s Black Radiance compact infringe on the plaintiffs’ patent. On Jthe Court instructed the plaintiffs to specify which products were infringing on their patent. This is done by encasing the bottom portion of the compact within the molded plastic in a manner that allows the top portion of the compact to open and close freely. This enables the customer to view the powder and its color directly while at the same time protecting the powder from direct exposure. Blister packaging is a means of displaying a cosmetic compact by placing it on a piece of cardboard with a hardened plastic cover over it. Pavion Ltd., one of the defendants, moves for summary judgment. Maybelline Co., et al.Īrtmatic USA Cosmetics and Arthur Matney have sued fifteen defendants for patent infringement of their blister packaging for cosmetics. Our clients are more than just customers we have become partners for the journey, dedicated to delivering successful outcomes that enhance the event experience and brand objectives.Artmatic USA Cosmetics Inc. With extensive experience in managing national events, promotions and exhibitions, and a wealth of industry knowledge, we provide complete peace-of-mind service for event managers, marketing professionals and exhibitors in need of expert event solutions Everything is done in-house, eliminating supply chain and logistics wastage, translating into cost-savings for the client. With the latest production technologies, we create high value products and provide services such as 2D and 3D design, event management and fabrication of displays, booths and other custom visual merchandising needs.
We envision a stress free journey for all our clients, from concept through to planning and delivery. ARTMATIC is a One Stop Service Provider for all your Visual Merchandising needs with a track record spanning more than 15 years.