Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

Embed Size (px)

Text of Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    1/52

    1

    UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTSOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XPRESTI GE J EWELRY I NTERNATI ONAL, :I NC. , : 11- CV- 2930 ( LAP)

    :Pl ai nt i f f , : MEMORANDUM & ORDER:

    v. ::

    BK J EWELLERY HK, BK J EWELRY ( N. Y) :I NC. , WI NG YEE GEMS & J EWELLERY :LI MI TED AND A. V. J EWELRY EXPORT- :I MPORT, LTD. , :

    :Def endant s. :

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

    LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chi ef Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge:

    Col or . Cut . Cl ar i t y. Car at . Anyone who has shopped f or a

    di amond engagement r i ng i s f ami l i ar wi t h t he Four Cs. Thi s

    case i s about one of t he Four Cscut . Pl ai nt i f f , Pr est i ge

    J ewel r y I nter nat i onal , I nc. ( Pr est i ge) and Def endant s BK

    J ewel l er y [ si c] HK, BK J ewel r y ( N. Y. ) I nc. , Wi ng Yee Gems &

    J ewel l er y [ si c] Li mi t ed, and A. V. J ewel r y Expor t - I mpor t , LTD.

    ( col l ect i vel y, Def endant s) , ar e engaged i n t he manuf act ur e and

    sal e of j ewel r y f eat ur i ng a r el at i vel y l ar ge f ul l - cut cent er

    di amond t i ght l y sur r ounded by sever al r el at i vel y smal l er si ngl e-

    cut di amonds. Def endant s patent ed desi gn i ncl udes ni ne

    per i pher al si ngl e- cut di amonds whi l e Pr est i ge s pr oduct i ncl udes

    ei ght or t en. Thi s di amond ar r angement i s supposed t o gi ve t he

    i l l usi on, f r om a di st ance at l east , of a l ar ge di amond

    sol i t ai r e. Pr est i ge br ought sui t agai nst Def endant s seeki ng a

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 52

    USDC SDNYDOCUMENT

    ELECTRONICALLY FILEDDOC #: _________________

    DATE FILED: 9 15 2014

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    2/52

    2

    decl ar at i on of pat ent i nval i di t y and non- i nf r i ngement .

    Def endant s asser t ed count er cl ai ms f or pat ent i nf r i ngement and

    Lanham Act vi ol at i ons. Now bot h si des move f or summary

    j udgment . For t he r easons set f or t h bel ow, Pr est i ge s mot i on

    f or summary j udgment [ dkt . no. 69] on t he i ssues of val i di t y and

    i nf r i ngement i s DENI ED. Def endant s mot i on f or summary j udgment

    [ dkt . no. 91] on val i di t y i s GRANTED.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    3/52

    3

    I . BACKGROUND1

    A. The 132 Pat ent and t he Mar ket i ng of t he Lady Dr eamJ ewel r y

    On J une 22, 2010, t he Uni t ed St ates Pat ent and Trademark

    Of f i ce ( USPTO) i ssued Uni t ed St at es Desi gn Pat ent D618, 132. 2

    ( Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 1 ( t he 132 Pat ent ) . ) The pat ent

    l i st ed Tse- Kok Wong and Lok- Sung Wong of Kowl oon, Hong Kong as

    i nvent or s and named t he Hong Kong company Wi ng Yee Gems

    & J ewel l er y [ si c] Li mi t ed ( Wi ng Yee) as assi gnee. ( See i d. )

    1 The Cour t s r eci t at i on of f act s i s based on t he f ol l owi ngdecl ar at i ons and t he exhi bi t s at t ached t her et o: Decl ar at i on ofJ oseph A. Mar t i n, dat ed Oct . 1, 2012 [ dkt . no. 70] ( Mar t i nDecl . ) ; Decl ar at i on of Max Moskowi t z, dat ed Oct . 28, 2012( Fi r st Moskowi t z Decl . ) ; Decl ar at i on of Dar t h M. Newman, dat edOct . 24, 2012 [ dkt . no. 84] ( Newman Decl . ) ; Decl ar at i on of AviMat at ov, f i l ed Sept . 16, 2013 [ dkt . no. 93] ( Mat at ov Decl . ) ;Decl ar at i on of Lok- Sung Wong, dat ed Sept . 13, 2013 [ dkt . no. 94]

    ( Wong Decl . ) ; Decl ar at i on of Max Moskowi t z, dat ed Sept . 16,2013 [ dkt . no. 96] ( Second Moskowi t z Decl . ) ; Decl ar at i on ofJ ef f r ey Cohen, dat ed Oct . 15, 2013 [ dkt . no. 100] ( CohenDecl . ) ; Decl ar at i on of Sal l y Cr i t i des, dat ed Oct . 15, 2013[ dkt . no. 101] ( Cr i t i des Decl ar at i on) ; Decl ar at i on of MaxMoskowi t z, dat ed Oct . 23, 2013 [ dkt . no. 105] ( Thi r d Moskowi t zDecl . ) . The Cour t al so consi der s t he par t i es st at ement spur suant t o Local Rul e 56. 1: Pl ai nt i f f s St at ement of Undi sput edMat er i al Fact s, dat ed Oct . 1, 2012 [ dkt . no. 75] ( Pr est i ge s56. 1 St at ement ) ; Def endant s Opposi t i on t o Pl ai nt i f f sSt at ement of Undi sput ed Fact s, dat ed Oct . 18, 2012 ( Def s. 56. 1Count er - St at ement ) ( not f i l ed on ECF) ; Def endant s St at ement ofUndi sput ed Mat er i al Fact s Under Rul e 56. 1, dat ed Sept . 16, 2013[ dkt . no. 95] ( Def s. 56. 1 St at ement ) ; Pl ai nt i f f s Response t oDef endant s St at ement of Mat er i al Fact s Pur suant t o L. Ci v. R.56. 1 [ dkt . no. 103] ( Pr est i ge s 56. 1 Count er - St at ement ) .

    2 The pat ent appl i cat i on was f i l ed on Febr uar y 11, 2009, cl ai mi ngt he pr i or i t y of a Hong Kong pat ent appl i cat i on f i l ed on August ,12, 2008. ( Wong Decl . 6. )

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 3 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    4/52

    4

    One of t he co- i nvent ors, Lok- Sung Rocky Wong, manages Wi ng Yee

    as wel l as t wo si st er compani es, BK J ewel l ery HK ( BK HK) and

    BK J ewel l er y, I nc. ( N. Y. ) ( BK NY) ( col l ect i vel y, BK

    J ewel l er y) . ( Wong Decl . 3- 5. ) BK J ewel l er y mar ket s j ewel r y

    i ncor por at i ng t he desi gn shown i n t he 132 Pat ent under t he

    t r ademar k Lady Dr eam. ( I d. 4, 21. )

    As i s cust omar y f or desi gn pat ent s, t he 132 Pat ent s cl ai m

    i s set f or t h i n pi ctur es, not wor ds. The cl ai m i s f or [ t ] he

    or nament al desi gn f or a di amond j ewel l er y [ si c] , as shown and

    descr i bed i n t he f ol l owi ng t wo i mages:

    ( 132 Pat ent . ) The par t i es agr ee t hat t hese f i gur es show a

    di amond ar r angement , wi t h one cent er , comparat i vel y l arger

    f ul l - cut di amond, sur r ounded by ni ne smal l er si ngl e- cut

    di amonds t hat are cant ed r el at i ve t o the cent er di amond and

    sl i ght l y over l ap i t . ( See Wong Decl . 9; see al so Pr est i ge s

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 4 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    5/52

    5

    56. 1 Count er- St atement 16. ) 3 Ful l - cut di amonds have more

    f acet s t han si ngl e- cut di amonds and t ypi cal l y pr oduce a gr eat er

    spar kl i ng ef f ect . ( Wong Decl . 11; see al so Pr est i ge s 56. 1

    Count er - Statement 18. ) The di amond ar r angement depi ct ed i n

    t he 132 Pat ent i s desi gned t o l ook l i ke a l ar ge di amond

    sol i t ai r e f r om a di st ance. ( See Wong Decl . 15; see al so

    Prest i ge s 56. 1 Count er- St atement 20. ) When vi ewed up cl ose,

    however , i t i s obvi ous t hat t he ar r angement i s composed of

    sever al smal l er di amonds. ( Wong Decl . 15; see al so Pr est i ge s

    56. 1 Counter - St atement 20. ) Ar r angement s of smal l er di amonds

    gr ouped t ogether t o mi mi c a l arger di amond are of t en cal l ed

    cl ust er t ops. ( See Pr est i ge s 56. 1 St at ement 10. ) 4

    Pr i or t o obt ai ni ng t he U. S. pat ent i n 2010, BK J ewel l er y

    began mar ket i ng i t s Lady Dr eamj ewel r y i n Asi a, Eur ope, and t he

    3 Al t hough t he par t i es agr ee t hat t hi s i s an accur at e descr i pt i onof t he pi ct ur es i n t he 132 Pat ent , t hey di sagr ee over t hepr oper descr i pt i on of t he i mages f or t he pur pose of cl ai mconst r uct i on. As di scussed bel ow, t he Cour t decl i nes f or mal l yt o t r ansl at e t he 132 Pat ent s cl ai m i nt o wor ds. ( See i nf r aPar t I I . B. 1. )

    4

    Def endant s di sagr ee wi t h Prest i ge on t he pr eci se meani ng of t het er m cl ust er t op. ( See Def s. 56. 1 Count er - St at ement 10. )Def endant s cont end t hat t he t er m onl y r ef er s t o arr angement s ofdi amonds t hat ar e [ m] or e or l ess t he same si ze. ( SeeMoskowi t z Decl . Ex. 30 ( Deposi t i on of Avi Mat at ov) , at 62: 6-63: 2. ) The par t i es di sagr eement over t he meani ng of t hi s t er mi s i mmat er i al , and t he Cour t adopt s Pr est i ge s def i ni t i on f ort he pur poses of t hi s memorandum and order .

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 5 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    6/52

    6

    Amer i cas i n l ate 2008. ( Wong Decl . 23. ) 5 As ear l y as March

    2009, BK J ewel l er y di st r i but ed an adver t i sement f or i t s Lady

    Dr eam j ewel r y. ( Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 27. ) The

    adver t i sement st at ed t hat t he j ewel r y was [ w] or l dwi de

    [ p] at ent ed and descr i bed t he desi gn as one br i l l i ant cut

    di amond sur r ounded wi t h 9 pi eces of speci al cut r ound di amonds,

    per f ect [ si c] match t o show one r ound shape di amond whi ch has

    t he same l ook as a sol i t ai r e st one. ( I d. ) 6 The adver t i sement

    i ncl uded dr awi ngs of a desi gn ver y si mi l ar , i f not i dent i cal t o

    t he dr awi ngs i n t he 132 Pat ent . ( I d. ) I t al so cont ai ned a

    phot ogr aph of a r i ng i ncor por at i ng t he desi gn. ( I d. )

    I n addi t i on t o adver t i sement s, BK J ewel l er y al so di spl ayed

    t he Lady Dr eam j ewel r y at t r ade shows. I n Mar ch 2009, Avi

    Mat at ov of A. V. J ewel r y obser ved t he Lady Dr eam j ewel r y at a

    t r ade show i n Hong Kong and sought a l i cense t o sel l t he j ewel r y

    t o maj or r et ai l er s i n t he Uni t ed St at es. ( Mat at ov Decl . 6-

    9. ) A. V. J ewel r y event ual l y ent er ed i nt o a l i censi ng agr eement

    f or t he Lady Dr eam j ewel r y i n 2010 and began of f er i ng i t f or

    5 Wi ng Yee had f i l ed i t s f i r st pat ent appl i cat i on i n Hong Kong onAugust 12, 2008 and subsequent l y appl i ed f or and was grant edpat ent s i n sever al j ur i sdi ct i ons ( i n addi t i on t o t he Uni t edSt at es and Hong Kong) i ncl udi ng Canada, Aust r al i a, t he Peopl e sRepubl i c of Chi na, and Eur ope. ( Wong Decl . 6- 7. )

    6 The par t i es agr ee t hat br i l l i ant cut means t he same as f ul lcut . ( See Def s. 56. 1. 18; Pr est i ge s 56. 1 Count er - St at ement 18. )

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 6 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    7/52

    7

    sal e i n t he U. S. under t he t r ademar k St ar l i ght Dr eam

    Col l ect i on. ( I d. 9- 10. ) Mat at ov cl ai ms t hat f ol l owi ng a

    t r ade show i n Las Vegas i n 2010 he was on t he ver ge of secur i ng

    sal es agr eement s wi t h maj or r et ai l er s. ( See i d. 11- 14. ) But

    t hese cont r act s never mat er i al i zed because, accor di ng t o

    Mat at ov, t he r et ai l er s ent er ed i nt o cont r act s wi t h Pr est i ge f or

    s i mi l ar j ewel r y. ( See i d. )

    B. Prest i ge s Devel opment and Sal e of t he Uni t y J ewel r y

    Pr est i ge i s a New Yor k cor por at i on wi t h i t s pr i nci pal pl ace

    of busi ness i n Manhat t an. ( Amended Compl ai nt , dated J une 21,

    2011 [ dkt . no. 12] ( Am. Compl . ) 3; Answer t o Am. Compl .

    [ dkt . no. 15] 3. ) Prest i ge i s owned and managed by Raj i v

    Kot har i and hi s br ot her , Mi t en Kot har i . ( Second Moskowi t z Decl .

    Ex. 21 ( Raj i v Kot har i Deposi t i on Tr anscr i pt ) ( Kot har i Dep.

    Tr . ) ) , at 22: 17- 23. ) I n ear l y 2010, Pr est i ge was i n t he

    pr ocess of devel opi ng a cl ust er - t op j ewel r y pr oduct , whi ch

    event ual l y became known as t he Uni t y j ewel r y. ( I d. at 69: 16-

    24. ) One of Pr est i ge s vendor s, Mehul Vaghani of Ki r an, an

    I ndi an company, showed Raj i v Kot har i a cl ust er - t op r i ng cr eat ed

    by BK J ewel l er y and a br ochur e st at i ng t hat t he j ewel r y was

    wor l dwi de pat ent ed. ( I d. at 69: 22- 71: 1. ) 7 On J une 5, 2010,

    7 Def endant s st at e t hat t hi s was t he Lady Dr eam j ewel r y. ( SeeDef s. 56. 1 St at ement 38. ) Prest i ge acknowl edges that t he( cont d)

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 7 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    8/52

    8

    Vaghani f orwarded t o t wo Pr est i ge empl oyees an emai l wi t h t he

    subj ect l i ne si ngl e/ r ound pat end [ si c] wor l dwi de. ( Second

    Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 28. ) Vaghani wr ot e, at t ached i s t he sour ce

    f or your i nspi r at i on and at t ached a br ochur e f or BK s Lady

    Dr eam j ewel r y. ( I d. )

    On J une 7, 2010, Pr est i ge s counsel , Ar nol d D. Li t t , wr ot e

    i n an emai l t o a pat ent sear cher t hat Prest i ge wi shes t o

    manuf act ur e and sel l t he di amond desi gn at t ached her et o [ scr ol l

    down t o t he at t achment and you l l see t he di amond desi gn sol d by

    our cl i ent s compet i t or , BK J ewel l er y. ] ( Second Moskowi t z

    Decl . Ex. 29. ) Li t t asked t he pat ent sear cher t o l ook f or

    pat ent s i n BK J ewel l er y s name speci f i cal l y but t he pat ent

    sear cher di d not f i nd anyt hi ng. ( I d. Ex. 30. ) On Febr uar y 15,

    2011, Prest i ge empl oyee J ef f r ey Cohen sent an emai l t o Raj i v

    Kot har i , Mi t en Kot har i , and ot her s at t achi ng t he 132 Pat ent ,

    whi ch a cust omer r epor t edl y f or war ded t o Pr est i ge. ( See i d. Ex.

    34. ) Cohen st at ed, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat [ t ] he pat ent

    appear s t o be l egi t , [ t ] he di agr ams ar e showi ng si ngl e- cut s,

    and we need t o di scuss as soon as possi bl e. ( I d. ) Raj i v

    Kot har i f or war ded t he emai l and t he at t achment t o Ar nol d Li t t

    ( cont d f r om pr ev. page)j ewel r y and brochur e wer e cr eat ed by BK J ewel l er y but does notadmi t t hat t hey showed t he Lady Dr eam desi gn. ( Prest i ge s 56. 1Count er- St atement 37- 38. )

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 8 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    9/52

    9

    and t he pat ent sear cher aski ng [ i ] s our s di f f er ent enough t hat

    we can market our i t em? Does the st one count mat t er? ( I d. )

    Kothar i al so asked [ w] hy were we unabl e t o f i nd thi s when we

    had done t he sear ch l ast year ? ( I d. ) Li t t r esponded t hat

    st one count does not necessar i l y det er mi ne possi bl e

    i nf r i ngement by i t sel f but due t o a var i et y of f actor s i t i s a

    cl ose cal l . ( I d. Ex. 35, at 2. ) Li t t al so stat ed t hat t hey

    di d not f i nd t he 132 Pat ent dur i ng t he i ni t i al sear ch because

    t he 132 Pat ent had not yet been i ssued at t hat t i me. ( I d. ) 8

    Li t t f ur t her opi ned t hat , r egar dl ess of di amond count , t he 132

    Pat ent appear s t o be a di f f erent l ook f r om t he Uni t y di amond

    set t i ng because t he di amonds i n t he 132 Pat ent appear t o be

    f l oat i ng i n ai r wi t hout a set t i ng. ( I d. at 1. ) Raj i v Kot har i

    t hen asked i f si ngl e cut vs. f ul l cut ar ound t he cent er change

    t he appl i cat i on of desi gn pat ent ? t o whi ch Li t t ul t i mat el y

    r esponded [ p] l ease cal l me on t hi s. ( I d. )

    I n l at e 2010, Pr est i ge began mar ket i ng t o r et ai l er s i t s

    Uni t y l i ne of j ewel r y. ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 22

    ( Deposi t i on of J ef f r ey Cohen ( Cohen Dep. Tr . ) , at 43: 21- 44: 6. )

    8 Al so, Wi ng Yeenot BK J ewel l erywas t he ass i gnee of t he 132Pat ent . Def endant s stat e, and Pr est i ge admi t s, t hat Pr est i geand i t s at t orneys were not aware of Wi ng Yee i n 2010 and apr i or ar t sear ch pr i or t o [ J une 22, 2010] woul d not have f oundt he 132 Pat ent . ( Def s. 56. 1 St at ement 66- 67; Pr est i ge sCount er- St atement 66- 67. )

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 9 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    10/52

    10

    One ver si on of t he Uni t y desi gn f eat ur ed a f ul l - cut cent er

    di amond sur r ounded by ei ght or t en r el at i vel y smal l er si ngl e- cut

    di amonds. ( See Kot har i Dep. Tr . , at 71: 10- 72: 14. ) Pr est i ge

    al so made a ver si on of t he Uni t y j ewel r y t hat i ncl uded onl y

    f ul l - cut di amonds. ( See, e. g. , Cohen Decl . 8. ) Pr est i ge

    i nt ent i onal l y used ei ght or t en per i pher al di amonds i n t he Uni t y

    desi gn t o avoi d i nf r i ngi ng on t he 132 Pat ent whi ch has ni ne

    per i pher al di amonds. ( See Kot har i Dep. Tr . , at 71: 10- 72: 14. )

    By J ul y 2012, Pr est i ge made sever al mi l l i on dol l ar s f r om

    sal es of t he Uni t y pr oduct . ( Def s. 56. 1 St at ement 47;

    Pr est i ge s 56. 1 Count er - St at ement 47. ) The Uni t y desi gn wi t h

    si ngl e- cut per i pheral di amonds made up as much as ni nety percent

    of t hose sal es, ( Kot har i Dep. Tr . , at 105: 13- 21) , even t hough

    t hi s ver si on was mor e expensi ve. ( See Cohen Dep. Tr . , at 29: 2-

    12. ) Si nce 2012, however , Pr est i ge cl ai ms t hat t he Uni t y desi gn

    wi t h f ul l - cut per i pher al di amonds has had bet t er sal es. ( Cohen

    Decl . 8. )

    Pr est i ge f i l ed i t s f i r st pat ent appl i cat i on i n connecti on

    wi t h t he Uni t y j ewel r y desi gn i n August 2010. ( See Second

    Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 24 ( Deposi t i on of Ar nol d Li t t ( Li t t Dep.

    Tr . ) ) , at 205: 15- 21. ) . Thi s pat ent appl i cat i on depi ct ed onl y a

    desi gn wi t h f ul l - cut per i pher al di amonds. ( See i d. ) I n March

    2011, Pr est i ge f i l ed anot her pat ent appl i cat i on showi ng bot h

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 10 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    11/52

    11

    ver si ons of t he Uni t y j ewel r yt hat i s, t he f ul l - cut cent er

    di amond sur r ounded by f ul l - cut per i pher al di amonds and t he f ul l -

    cut cent er di amond sur r ounded by si ngl e- cut per i pher al di amonds.

    ( See i d. at 64: 9- 65: 2. ) Al t hough Pr est i ge di scl osed near l y

    f or t y pi eces of pr i or ar t i n connect i on wi t h i t s pat ent

    appl i cat i on f or t he desi gn wi t h si ngl e- cut per i pher al di amonds,

    i t di d not di scl ose t he 132 Pat ent or t he Lady Dr eam br ochur e.

    ( See, e. g. , i d. at 205: 7- 210: 19. ) Accor di ng t o Pr est i ge s

    counsel , t hese document s were not mater i al because t hey showed

    f l oat i ng gems sur r oundi ng a cent r al cor e whi ch was unr el at ed

    t o Prest i ge s appl i cat i on whi ch i nvol ved a compl ete di amond

    set t i ng i ncl udi ng t he post s, t he t r i pl i cat e post s, t he si ngul ar

    post s, t he way t hey connect ed wi t h t he di amonds. ( I d. at

    196: 11- 198: 13; 210: 2- 19. )

    On November 22, 2010, Ar nol d Li t t of Prest i ge sent a cease-

    and- desi st l et t er t o Avi Mat at ov of AV J ewel r y. The l et t er

    st at ed t hat Mat at ov

    appr oached one of [ Prest i ge s] cust omers and at t empt edt o sel l t hema di amond head whi ch was descr i bed t o usas an i mi t at i on of our cl i ent s Uni t y- t ype di amond

    head wi t h si ngl e cut di amonds. Pl ease be advi sed t hatour cl i ent has act i vel y mar ket ed i t s di amond head f ora subst ant i al per i od of t i me. Mor eover , i t has apendi ng pat ent appl i cat i on r egar di ng i t s desi gn. Thecust omer cont act ed our cl i ent and i ndi cat ed i t wasconf used as t o t he sour ce and i dent i t y of t he di amondhead because of t he si mi l ar i t y bet ween t he two i t ems.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 11 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    12/52

    12

    ( Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 32. ) Prest i ge appar ent l y was

    unawar e t hat Mat at ov hel d a l i cense to sel l Lady Dr eam j ewel r y

    under t he 132 Pat ent . On March 31, 2011, A. V. J ewel r y

    r esponded wi t h i t s own cease- and- desi st l et t er , st at i ng, among

    ot her t hi ngs, t hat A. V. J ewel r y i s t he excl usi ve l i censee of

    t he 132 Pat ent and al l eged t hat Pr est i ge s Uni t y- t ype di amond

    head j ewel r y cl ear l y i nf r i nges upon t he 132 Pat ent . ( Second

    Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 40. )

    C.

    Pr est i ge Fi l es t hi s Acti on

    Pr est i ge f i l ed t hi s act i on on Apr i l 29, 2011, seeki ng a

    decl ar at i on of non- i nf r i ngement and a decl ar at i on t hat t he 132

    Pat ent i s i nval i d. Prest i ge named Wi ng Yee and A. V. J ewel r y as

    def endant s i n t he i ni t i al compl ai nt . ( See Compl ai nt [ dkt . no.

    1] . ) The case was ass i gned t o t he Honorabl e Leonard B. Sand.

    On J une 14, 2011 Def endant s f i l ed thei r answer i n whi ch they

    asser t ed count er cl ai ms f or patent i nf r i ngement and Lanham Act

    vi ol at i ons agai nst Pr est i ge. ( See Answer [ dkt . no. 10] . )

    Prest i ge f i l ed an amended compl ai nt on J une 21, 2011 whi ch added

    BK J ewel l ery as a def endant . ( See Am. Compl . )

    D. The Pat ent Reexami nat i on Pr oceedi ngs and t he Pr i or Ar t

    On Mar ch 2, 2012 Prest i ge f i l ed an ex par t e r equest f or

    r eexami nat i on of t he 132 Pat ent by t he PTO. ( Second Moskowi t z

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 12 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    13/52

    13

    Decl . Ex. 13 ( Pr est i ge s Request f or Ex Par t e Reexami nat i on) . )

    Pr est i ge ar gued t hat t he 132 Pat ent shoul d be i nval i dat ed

    because cer t ai n pi eces of pr i or ar t ant i ci pat e or r ender obvi ous

    t he desi gn depi ct ed i n t he 132 Pat ent . ( I d. at PRESTI GE1026. )

    Pr est i ge l i st ed t en pi eces of pr i or ar t i n connect i on wi t h t hi s

    r equest . ( I d. at PRESTI GE1012. ) The PTO consi dered t hese t en

    r ef er ences but det er mi ned t hat onl y f our of t hem r ai sed a

    subst ant i al new quest i on of pat ent abi l i t y. ( Ex. 14 ( Deci si on

    Gr ant i ng Ex Par t es [ si c] Reexami nat i on, dat ed May 14, 2012) , at

    4- 5. ) These were U. S. Pat ent No. 7, 762, 104 ( See Second

    Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 2 ( t he Li n pat ent ) ) , U. S. Pat ent No.

    1, 238, 721 ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 8 ( t he Bi r nbaum

    pat ent ) ) , U. S. Pat ent No. 1, 001, 583 ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl .

    Ex. 9 ( t he Fai r br ot her pat ent ) ) , and U. S. Pat ent No. 7, 461, 452

    ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 10 ( t he Kot har i pat ent ) ) .

    ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 14 at 2, 4- 5. ) 9 The PTO al so

    9 The PTO det ermi ned t hat t he Memoi r e ref erence ( See SecondMoskowi t z Decl . Ex. 11) was not pr i or ar t . I t al so det er mi nedt hat t he f ol l owi ng r ef er ences di d not r ai se a subst ant i al newquest i on of pat ent abi l i t y: t he Whi t ehouse pat ent ( See SecondMoskowi t z Decl . Ex. 3) ( t he st ones do not over l ap, t he si zedi f f er ence of t he st ones i s l ess exagger at ed, t he bases of t hest ones ar e on near l y t he same pl ane) , t he Suderov patent ( SeeSecond Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 4) ( t he si ze di f f er ences of t he st onesar e l ess exagger at ed, t he bases of t he st ones are on near l y thesame pl ane) , t he Gur f i nkel patent ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl .Ex. 5) ( t he per i pher al st ones are not angl ed agai nst t he cent r alst one) , t he Wi ng Yee r ef erence (See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 6)( t he per i pher al st ones ar e not angl ed agai nst t he cent er st one,( cont d)

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 13 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    14/52

    14

    consi der ed a non- pat ent l i t er at ur e r ef er ence: t he Edwar di an

    cl ust er r i ng whi ch i ncl uded ni ne per i pher al st ones and was

    pr act i ced at l east as ear l y as t he Edwar di an er a, appr oxi mat el y

    1901- 1915. ( Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 15 ( Of f i ce Act i on i n Ex

    Par t e Reexami nat i on) , at 3. )

    On J anuar y 15, 2013 t he PTO i nval i dat ed t he 132 Pat ent f or

    t he f ol l owi ng f our r easons: ( 1) t he Li n pat ent 10 ant i ci pat es t he

    132 Pat ent desi gn; ( 2) t he Li n pat ent , i n vi ew of t he Edwar di an

    cl ust er r i ng and t he Bi r nbaum pat ent , r ender s obvi ous t he 132

    Pat ent desi gn; ( 3) t he Li n pat ent , i n vi ew of t he Edwar di an

    cl ust er r i ng and t he Fai r br ot her pat ent , r ender s obvi ous t he

    132 Pat ent desi gn; ( 4) t he Li n pat ent , i n vi ew of t he Edwar di an

    cl ust er r i ng and t he Kot har i pat ent , r ender s obvi ous t he 132

    ( cont d f r om pr ev. page)t he i mages ar e of t oo poor qual i t y) , and t he Cohen pat entappl i cat i on ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 7) ( t he per i pher alst ones are not angl ed agai nst t he cent er st one, t he per i pher alst ones do not embody a wel l - known di amond cut ) . ( See SecondMoskowi t z Decl . Ex. 14. ) The PTO al so determi ned t hat t hef ol l owi ng r ef er ences di d not r ai se a subst ant i al quest i on ofpat ent abi l i t y by themsel ves: t he Bi r nbaum pat ent ( t he cent r alst one and per i pher al st ones are near l y the same si ze, t heper i pher al st ones ar e not angl ed agai nst t he cent er st one) , t heFai r br ot her pat ent ( t he st ones do not over l ap, t he cent r al st one

    and per i pher al st ones are the same si ze, t he per i pher al st onesar e not angl ed agai nst t he cent er st one) , and t he Kot har i pat ent( t he cent r al st one and per i pher al st ones are near l y the samesi ze, t he per i pher al st ones are not angl ed agai nst t he cent erst one) . ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 14, at 8- 9. )

    10 The Li n Pat ent shows a f ul l - cut cent r al di amond surr ounded byei ght f ul l - cut per i pher al di amonds whi ch ar e angl ed agai nst t hecent r al di amond. ( See Li n Pat ent . )

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 14 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    15/52

    15

    Pat ent s desi gn. ( I d. at 2- 8. ) One of t he bases f or t he PTO s

    det er mi nat i on was i t s concl usi on t hat

    [ t ] he use of si ngl e - cut per i pher al st ones [ i ncl uded

    i n t he Bi r nbaum, Fai r br ot her , and Kot har i r ef er ences]i n pl ace of f ul l - cut st ones i s obvi ous gi ven t hatt he si ngl e - cut st yl e pr e- dat es t he use of t he f ul l - cut s tyl e hi s tor i cal l y. Fur t her , t hedi f f er ence i n over al l appear ance achi eved by usi ng f ul l - cut styl e per i pher al stones i nstead of s i ngl e-cut per i pher al st ones i s not consi der ed pat ent abl ydi st i ngui shi ng.

    ( I d. at 4. )

    Fol l owi ng t he PTO s r eexami nat i on or der , Wi ng Yee f i l ed a

    r esponse on March 15, 2013 i n whi ch i t made t he f ol l owi ng

    ar gument s: ( 1) t he Edwar di an r i ng r ef er ence i s not pr i or ar t ;

    ( 2) t her e i s a meani ngf ul di st i nct i on bet ween f ul l - cut and

    si ngl e- cut di amonds and t hey have di f f er ent appearances;

    ( 3) [ i ] t was count er i nt ui t i ve i n 2008 i n a cl ust er desi gn

    seeki ng t o si mul at e a sol i t ai r e l ook and appear ance t o

    del i ber at el y choose some of t he st ones t o be f ul l cut and t o

    pr ovi de t he ot her st ones as si ngl e cut di amonds; ( 4)

    secondar y consi der at i ons, such as commer ci al success, i ndi cat e

    t hat t he desi gn of t he 132 Pat ent was not obvi ous. ( Second

    Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 16 ( Response t o Of f i ce Act i on) , at 5- 6. ) .

    Wi ng Yee al so at t ached t went y- si x exhi bi t s. ( I d. 7- 10. )

    On J ul y 10, 2013, t he PTO r ever sed i t s i nval i dat i on of t he

    132 Pat ent and conf i r med t he val i di t y of t he pat ent . ( Second

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 15 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    16/52

    16

    Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 17 ( Reasons f or Pat ent abi l i t y and

    Conf i r mat i on of t he Pat ent Cl ai m) . ) The PTO not ed t hat

    [ t ] he pr i or ar t does not show a l ar ger , cent r al

    di amond surr ounded by a r i ng of di amonds wi t h aDI FFERENT cut st yl e. As support ed by t he Pat entOwner s decl ar at i ons, t he pr i or ar t shows t hatper i pheral di amonds have t he SAME cut st yl e as t hecent r al di amond.

    ( I d. at 10. ) The PTO f ur t her not ed t hat

    [ t ] he Patent Owner at t est s t o t r emendous commerci alsuccess of t he desi gn of t he 132 pat ent , and i n a wayt hat t akes i nt o account sal es of i dent i cal j ewel r y,wi t h t he onl y di f f er ence bei ng t he cut st yl e of t he

    per i pheral di amonds. Because sal es behavi or wasdi r ect l y l i nked t o whet her t he per i pher al di amondswer e s i ngl e- cut or f ul l - cut [ t hi s] per mi t s thear gument of commer ci al success t o be di sposi t i ve.

    ( I d. )

    E. The Mot i ons f or Summar y J udgment

    Prest i ge f i l ed i t s mot i on f or summar y j udgment on Oct ober

    2, 2012 [ dkt . no. 69] . Pr est i ge seeks a j udgment t hat t he 132

    Pat ent i s i nval i d because i t i s not or nament al and, even i f t he

    pat ent i s val i d, Pr est i ge s pr oduct s do not i nf r i nge t he 132

    Pat ent . 11 ( See Memor andum of Law i n Suppor t of Pl ai nt i f f s

    Mot i on f or Summary J udgment as t o Al l Cl ai ms and Count ercl ai ms,

    dat ed Oct . 1, 2012 [ dkt . no. 72] ( Pr est i ge s Memo. ) ) , at 2. )

    11 Pr est i ge al so seeks a j udgment di smi ssi ng Def endant s LanhamAct count er cl ai m. Pr est i ge cont ends t hat t he Lanham Act cl ai mmust be di smi ssed i f t he 132 Pat ent i s i nval i d or i f t her e hasbeen no i nf r i ngement . ( See Prest i ge s Memo. , at 15- 16. )

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 16 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    17/52

    17

    On J ul y 17, 2013, Def endant s r equest ed l eave t o f i l e a mot i on

    f or summary j udgment f ol l owi ng t he PTO s conf i r mat i on of t he

    val i di t y of t he pat ent i n t he second r eexami nat i on pr oceedi ng.

    ( See Let t er f r om Def endant s t o t he Cour t , dat ed J ul y 17, 2013

    [ dkt . no. 88 Ex. A] . ) The Cour t gr ant ed Def endant s r equest on

    August 15, 2013. ( See Or der , dated August 15, 2013 [ dkt . no.

    88] . ) 12 The Cour t al so st ayed consi der at i on of Pr est i ge s mot i on

    because bot h mot i ons f or summary j udgment shoul d be consi der ed

    t oget her . ( I d. at 2. ) Def endant s f i l ed t hei r mot i on f or

    par t i al summary j udgment on Sept ember 16, 2013 [ dkt . no. 91] .

    Def endant s seek a j udgment di smi ssi ng Pr est i ge s cl ai m t hat t he

    132 Pat ent i s i nval i d because i t i s ant i ci pat ed or r ender ed

    obvi ous by pr i or art . ( See Def endant s Memorandum of Law i n

    Suppor t of t hei r Mot i on f or Summary J udgment t hat t he D618, 132

    Desi gn Pat ent I s Not Render ed I nval i d by Pr i or Ar t Ci t ed by

    Pl ai nt i f f , dat ed Sept . 16, 2013 [ dkt . no. 92] ( Def s. Memo. ) .

    at 3. )

    12 The case was f ormal l y r eass i gned t o t he undersi gned on August20, 2013.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 17 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    18/52

    18

    I I . DI SCUSSI ON

    A. Legal St andards

    1. Summar y J udgment

    Summar y j udgment i s as avai l abl e i n pat ent cases as i n

    ot her ar eas of l i t i gat i on. Tokai Cor p. v. East on Ent s. , I nc. ,

    632 F. 3d 1358, 1366 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Cont ' l Can Co.

    USA, I nc. v. Monsant o Co. , 948 F. 2d 1264, 1265 ( Fed. Ci r .

    1991) ) . Rul e 56 of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e

    mandat es summary j udgment agai nst a par t y who f ai l s t o make a

    showi ng suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he exi st ence of an el ement

    essent i al t o t hat par t y' s case, and on whi ch t hat par t y wi l l

    bear t he bur den of pr oof at t r i al . Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t ,

    477 U. S. 317, 322 ( 1986) . I n consi der i ng a mot i on f or summary

    j udgment , t he Cour t const r ues evi dence i n t he l i ght most

    f avor abl e t o the non- movi ng par t y and al so dr aws al l r easonabl e

    i nf er ences i n f avor of t he non- movi ng par t y. Li ndsay v. Ass n

    of Pr of l Fl i ght At t endant s, 581 F. 3d 47, 50 ( 2d Ci r . 2009) .

    Summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate onl y i f t he movant shows t hat

    t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he

    movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Kwan v.

    Schl ei n, 634 F. 3d 224, 228 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v.

    P. 56( a) ) . An i ssue of f act i s genui ne i f t he evi dence i s such

    t hat a reasonabl e j ur y coul d r et ur n a ver di ct f or t he nonmovi ng

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 18 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    19/52

    19

    par t y. A f act i s mat er i al i f i t mi ght af f ect t he out come of t he

    sui t under the gover ni ng l aw. Li ndsay, 581 F. 3d at 50. The

    i nqui r y per f or med i s t he thr eshol d i nqui r y of det er mi ni ng

    whet her t her e i s t he need f or a t r i al whet her , i n ot her wor ds,

    t her e ar e any genui ne f act ual i ssues t hat pr oper l y can be

    r esol ved onl y by a f i nder of f act because t hey may r easonabl y be

    r esol ved i n f avor of ei t her par t y. Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby,

    477 U. S. 242, 250 ( 1986) . I n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on, t he

    Cour t must vi ew t he evi dence pr esent t hr ough t he pr i sm of t he

    subst ant i ve evi dent i ar y bur den. I d. at 254. I f t he par t y

    bear i ng t he bur den of pr oof pr esent s i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o

    suppor t a key el ement of i t s cl ai m, t her e can be no genui ne

    i ssue as t o any mat er i al f act , si nce a compl et e f ai l ur e of

    pr oof concer ni ng an essent i al el ement of t he nonmovi ng par t y s

    case necessar i l y r ender s al l ot her f act s i mmat er i al . Cel ot ex,

    477 U. S. at 322- 23.

    2. Desi gn Pat ent s

    a. Or nament al Requi r ement

    Pat ent pr ot ect i on i s avai l abl e f or any new, or i gi nal and

    or nament al desi gn f or an ar t i cl e of manuf act ur e. 35 U. S. C.

    171. Unl i ke ut i l i t y pat ent s, 13 a desi gn patent concerns t he

    13 Ut i l i t y pat ent s r equi r e t he i nvent i on of a usef ul pr ocess,machi ne, manuf act ur e, or composi t i on of mat t er , or any new andusef ul i mpr ovement t her eof . 35 U. S. C. 101

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 19 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    20/52

    20

    appear ance of an obj ect , not i t s usef ul ness. See PHG Techs. ,

    LLC v. St . J ohn Cos. , I nc. , 469 F. 3d 1361, 1366 ( Fed Ci r . 2006) .

    Despi t e t hi s key di st i nct i on, desi gn pat ent s gener al l y ar e

    subj ect t o t he same condi t i ons and r equi r ement s as ut i l i t y

    pat ent s. See 35 U. S. C. 171 ( The pr ovi si ons of t hi s t i t l e

    r el at i ng t o pat ent s f or i nvent i ons shal l appl y t o pat ent s f or

    desi gns, except as other wi se pr ovi ded. ) ; see al so I nt l Seaway

    Tr adi ng Cor p v. Wal greens Cor p. , 589 F. 3d 1233, 1238 ( Fed. Ci r .

    2009) . A desi gn i s or nament al i f i t s appear ance i s not di ct at ed

    sol el y by f unct i on. See Sei ko Epson Cor p. v. Nu- Kot e I nt l ,

    I nc. , 190 F. 3d 1360, 1368 ( Fed. Ci r . 1999) ( st at i ng t hat a

    desi gn pat ent need not be aest het i cal l y pl easi ng. The

    ornament al r equi r ement of t he desi gn st atut e means t hat t he

    desi gn must not be gover ned sol el y by f unct i on . . . [ t ] he

    desi gn may cont r i but e di st i nct i veness of consumer r ecogni t i on t o

    t he desi gn, but an absence of ar t i st i c mer i t does not mean t hat

    t he desi gn i s pur el y f unct i onal ) . Ther e i s no ar t i st i c or

    aest het i c el ement t o t he ornament al r equi r ement because, as t he

    Feder al Ci r cui t s pr edecessor cour t st at ed i n a case i nvol vi ng a

    r ubber gasket , beaut y i s of t en i n t he eye of t he behol der :

    The appear ance of appel l ant s gasket seem as muchdi ct at ed by f unct i onal consi der at i ons as i s t heappear ance of a pi ece of r ope, whi ch, t oo, has r i bsand gr ooves ni cel y ar r anged. The f act t hat i t i sat t r act i ve or pl easant t o behol d i s not enough. Manywel l - const r uct ed ar t i cl es of manuf act ur e whoseconf i gur at i ons ar e di ct at ed sol el y by f unct i on ar e

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 20 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    21/52

    21

    pl easi ng t o l ook upon, f or exampl e a hex- nut , a bal lbear i ng, a gol f cl ub, or a f i shi ng r od, t he pl easur edependi ng l ar gel y on one s i nt er est s. But i t has l ongbeen set t l ed t hat when a conf i gur at i on i s t he r esul tof f unct i onal consi der at i ons onl y, t he r esul t i ng

    desi gn i s not pat ent abl e as an or nament al desi gn f ort he si mpl e r eason t hat i t i s not or nament al was notcr eat ed f or t he pur pose of or nament i ng.

    I n r e Car l et t i , 328 F. 2d 1010, 1022 ( C. C. P. A. 1964) .

    Thus, ar t i cl es wi t h f unct i onal desi gns cannot r ecei ve

    desi gn pat ent prot ect i on. See Power Cont r ol s Cor p. v.

    Hybr i net i cs, I nc. , 806 F. 2d 234, 238 ( Fed. Ci r . 1986) ( I f

    t he pat ent ed desi gn i s pr i mar i l y f unct i onal r at her t han

    or nament al , t he pat ent i s i nval i d) ; see al so L. A. Gear ,

    I nc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co. , 988 F. 2d 1117, 1123 ( Fed. Ci r .

    1993) ( st at i ng t hat a desi gn i s f unct i onal and not

    ornament al when t he appear ance of t he cl ai med desi gn i s

    di ct at ed by t he use or pur pose of t he ar t i cl e) ( ci t at i ons

    and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; Sei ko Epson, 190

    F. 3d at 1368 ( st at i ng t hat a desi gn i s f unct i onal i f i t i s

    t he onl y possi bl e f or m of t he ar t i cl e t hat coul d per f or m

    i t s f unct i on) .

    b. Cl ai m Const r uct i on

    I n pat ent l aw, a cl ai m i s t he f or mal st at ement

    descr i bi ng t he novel f eat ur es of an i nvent i on and def i ni ng t he

    scope of t he pat ent s pr ot ect i on. BLACK S LAW DI CTI ONARY 1238 (9t h

    ed. 2009) . A cour t cannot deter mi ne whet her a patent i s val i d

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 21 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    22/52

    22

    unl ess i t f i r st const r ues t he pat ent cl ai m. El mer v. I CC

    Fabr i cat i ng, I nc. , 67 F. 3d 1571, 1577 ( Fed. Ci r . 1995)

    ( Det er mi ni ng whet her a desi gn pat ent cl ai m has been i nf r i nged

    r equi r es, f i r st , as wi t h ut i l i t y pat ent s, t hat t he cl ai m be

    pr oper l y const r ued t o det er mi ne i t s meani ng and scope. ) ; see

    al so Cybor Cor p. v. FAS Techs. , I nc. , 138 F. 3d 1448, 1455 ( Fed.

    Ci r . 1998) ( [ C] l ai m const r uct i on i s a l egal quest i on t o be

    deci ded by t he j udge. ) . Desi gn pat ent s t ypi cal l y ar e cl ai med

    as shown i n dr awi ngsnot i n words. Egypt i an Goddess, I nc. v.

    Swi sa, I nc. , 543 F. 3d 665, 679 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ( en

    banc) ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s i s

    because a desi gn pat ent cl ai m i s bet t er r epr esent ed by . . .

    [ an] i l l ust r at i on t han i t woul d be by any descr i pt i on, and a

    descr i pt i on woul d pr obabl y not be i nt el l i gi bl e wi t hout t he

    i l l ust r at i on. Dobson v. Dor nan, 118 U. S. 10, 14 ( 1886) .

    Al t hough a cour t must const r ue desi gn pat ent cl ai ms,

    or di nar i l y t he cour t need not at t empt t o pr ovi de a det ai l ed

    ver bal descr i pt i on of t he cl ai med desi gn, as i s t ypi cal l y done

    i n t he case of ut i l i t y pat ent s. Egypt i an Goddess, 543 F. 3d at

    679. Under cert ai n ci r cumst ances, a cour t t r ansl at i ng a desi gn

    pat ent cl ai m i nt o a ver bal descr i pt i on r i sks pl aci ng undue

    emphasi s on par t i cul ar f eat ur es of t he desi gn and t he r i sk t hat

    a f i nder of f act wi l l f ocus on each i ndi vi dual descr i bed f eat ur e

    i n t he ver bal descr i pt i on r at her t han on t he desi gn as a whol e.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 22 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    23/52

    23

    I d. at 680. Nonet hel ess, [ w] hi l e i t may be unwi se t o at t empt a

    f ul l descr i pt i on of t he cl ai med desi gn, a cour t may f i nd i t

    hel pf ul t o poi nt out , ei t her f or t he j ur y or i n t he case of a

    bench t r i al by way of descr i bi ng t he cour t s own anal ysi s,

    var i ous f eat ur es of t he cl ai med desi gn as t hey r el at e t o t he

    accused desi gn and t he pr i or ar t . I d. at 680. [ A] di st r i ct

    cour t s deci si on r egar di ng t he l evel of det ai l t o be used i n

    descr i bi ng t he cl ai med desi gn i s a mat t er wi t hi n t he cour t s

    di scret i on . . . . I d. 14

    c. Ant i ci pat i on

    A desi gn cannot be pat ent ed i f i t has been ant i ci pat ed by

    pr i or ar t . See 35 U. S. C. 102; I nt l Seaway, 589 F. 3d at 1238.

    Pr i or ar t i ncl udes evi dence t hat t he cl ai med i nvent i on was

    pat ent ed, descr i bed i n a pr i nt ed publ i cat i on, or i n publ i c use,

    on sal e or ot her wi se avai l abl e t o t he publ i c bef or e t he

    14 A r ecent case f r om t he Feder al Ci r cui t appear s t o be i nt ensi on wi t h t he hol di ng of Egypt i an Goddess. I n Hi gh Poi ntDesi gn LLC v. Buyer s Di r ect , I nc. , 730 F. 3d 1301, 1314 ( 2013) , at hr ee- j udge panel of t he Feder al Ci r cui t hel d t hat t he di st r i ctcour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o t r ansl at e t he desi gn of t he . . .pat ent i nt o a ver bal descr i pt i on and r emanded t he case wi t h

    i nstr uct i ons f or t he di str i ct cour t t o add suf f i ci ent det ai l t oi t s ver bal descr i pt i on of t he cl ai med desi gn t o evoke a vi suali mage consonant wi t h t he desi gn. I d. The t hr ee- j udge panel i nHi gh Poi nt di d not ci t e or di scuss t he en banc hol di ng ofEgypt i an Goddess. To t he ext ent t hese t wo cases ar ei nconsi st ent wi t h each ot her , t he Cour t f ol l ows t he Feder alCi r cui t s en banc deci si on i n Egypt i an Goddess.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 23 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    24/52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    25/52

    25

    t he cl ai med i nvent i on as a whol e woul d have been obvi ous bef ore

    t he ef f ect i ve f i l i ng dat e of t he cl ai med i nvent i on t o a per son

    havi ng or di nar y ski l l i n t he ar t t o whi ch t he cl ai med i nvent i on

    per t ai ns. 35 U. S. C. 103. The ul t i mat e i nqui r y f or

    obvi ousness i n a desi gn pat ent case i s whet her t he cl ai med

    desi gn woul d have been obvi ous t o a desi gner of or di nar y ski l l

    who desi gns ar t i cl es of t he t ype i nvol ved. Appl e, I nc. v.

    Samsung El ecs. Co. , Lt d. , 678 F. 3d 1314, 1329 ( Fed Ci r . 2012)

    ( quot i ng Ti t an Ti r e Cor p. v. Case New Hol l and, I nc. , 566 F. 3d

    1372, 1380 ( Fed. Ci r . 2009) ) . The Supr eme Cour t has ar t i cul at ed

    a f our - par t t est f or obvi ousness:

    [ T] he cour t must consi der ( 1) t he scope and cont ent oft he pr i or ar t ; ( 2) t he di f f er ence bet ween t he pr i orar t and t he cl ai med i nvent i on; ( 3) t he l evel ofor di nar y ski l l i n t he ar t ; and ( 4) any obj ect i veevi dence of nonobvi ousness. The obj ect i ve evi dence

    . . . i ncl udes i ndustr y skept i ci sm, l ong- f el ti ndust r i al need, commer ci al success, and copyi ng.

    Tr ansocean Of f shor e Deepwat er Dr i l l i ng, I nc. v. Maersk

    Cont r act or s, USA, I nc. , 617 F. 3d 1296, 1303 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010)

    ( ci t i ng Gr aham v. J ohn Deer e Co. of Kansas Ci t y, 383 U. S. 1, 17-

    18 ( 1966) ) . Obvi ousness i s a quest i on of l aw wi t h under l yi ng

    f act i ssues. What a par t i cul ar r ef er ence di scl oses i s a

    quest i on of f act , as i s t he quest i on of whet her t her e was a

    r eason t o combi ne cer t ai n r ef er ences. Tr ansocean, 617 F. 3d at

    1303) .

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 25 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    26/52

    26

    2. Presumpt i on of Val i di t y and Bur den of Proof

    A pat ent shal l be pr esumed val i d and [ t ] he bur den of

    est abl i shi ng i nval i di t y of a pat ent or any cl ai m t her eof shal l

    r est on t he par t y asser t i ng such i nval i di t y. 35 U. S. C. 282.

    [ T] he par t y asser t i ng i nval i di t y not onl y has t hepr ocedur al bur den of pr oceedi ng f i r st and est abl i shi nga pr i ma- f aci e case, but t he bur den of per suasi on ont he mer i t s r emai ns wi t h t he par t y unt i l f i naldeci si on. The par t y suppor t i ng val i di t y has noi ni t i al bur den t o pr ove val i di t y, havi ng been gi ven apr ocedur al advant age requi r i ng t hat he come f orwardonl y af t er a pr i ma- f aci e case of i nval i di t y has beenmade.

    St r at of l ex, I nc. v. Aer oqui p Cor p. , 713 F. 2d 1530, 1534 ( Fed.

    Ci r . 1983) . The accused i nf r i nger must pr ove i nval i di t y by

    cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. Tokai Cor p. v. East on Ent s. ,

    I nc. , 632 F. 3d 1358, 1367 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) .

    3. Pat ent Reexami nat i on Proceedi ngs

    Pur suant t o st at ut e [ a]ny per son at any t i me may f i l e a

    r equest f or r eexami nat i on by the [ PTO] of any cl ai m of a pat ent

    on t he basi s of any pr i or ar t ci t ed under t he pr ovi si ons of

    sect i on 301. 35 U. S. C. 302. 15 Congr ess i nt ended

    15 Sect i on 301 st ates: Any person at any t i me may ci t e to t heOf f i ce i n wr i t i ng ( 1) pr i or ar t consi st i ng of pat ent s or pr i nt edpubl i cat i ons whi ch t he per son bel i eves t o have a bear i ng on t hepat ent abi l i t y of any cl ai m of a par t i cul ar pat ent ; or ( 2)st at ement s of t he pat ent owner f i l ed i n a pr oceedi ng bef or e aFeder al cour t or t he [ PTO] i n whi ch t he pat ent owner t ook aposi t i on on t he scope of any cl ai m of a par t i cul ar pat ent . 45U. S. C. 301( a) .

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 26 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    27/52

    27

    r eexami nat i ons t o pr ovi de an i mpor t ant qual i t y check on

    patent s t hat woul d al l ow t he government t o r emove def ect i ve and

    er r oneousl y gr ant ed pat ent s. I n r e Swanson, 540 F. 3d 1368,

    1375 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

    omi t t ed) . The PTO may gr ant a r equest f or r eexami nat i on i f a

    subst ant i al new quest i on of pat ent abi l i t y af f ect i ng any cl ai m of

    t he pat ent concer ned i s rai sed by t he r equest . 35 U. S. C.

    303( a) .

    Al t hough t he r e- exami nat i on pr oceedi ng, l i ke ci vi l

    l i t i gat i on, det er mi nes whet her a pat ent i s val i d, t her e ar e

    i mpor t ant pr ocedur al di f f er ences. As not ed above, [ i ] n ci vi l

    l i t i gat i on a chal l enger who at t acks t he val i di t y of pat ent

    cl ai ms must over come the pr esumpt i on of val i di t y wi t h cl ear and

    convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he pat ent i s i nval i d. I n r e Swanson,

    540 F. 3d 1368, 1377 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ( ci t i ng 35 U. S. C. 282) .

    I n cont r ast , [ i ] n PTO exami nat i ons and r eexami nat i ons, t he

    st andard of pr oof a pr eponderance of t he evi dencei s

    subst ant i al l y l ower t han i n a ci vi l case, t her e i s no

    pr esumpt i on of val i di t y, and t he exami ner i s not at t acki ng t he

    val i di t y of t he pat ent but i s conduct i ng a subj ect i ve

    exami nat i on of t he cl ai ms i n l i ght of pr i or ar t . I n r e

    Swanson, 540 F. 3d at 1377 ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on

    marks omi t t ed) . Moreover , t he t wo f orums can consi der

    di f f er ent evi dence. Et hi con, I nc. v. Qui gg, 849 F. 2d at 1428.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 27 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    28/52

    28

    The f i ndi ngs of a pat ent r eexami nat i on proceedi ng provi de

    val uabl e anal ysi s t o t he di st r i ct cour t whi ch t he cour t can

    consi der i n r eachi ng i t s det er mi nat i on on val i di t y. Et hi con,

    I nc. v. Qui gg, 849 F. 2d 1422, 1428 ( Fed. Ci r . 1988) . However ,

    because of t he di f f er i ng st andar ds of pr oof and evi dence

    admi ssi bi l i t y, t her e i s

    not hi ng unt owar d about t he PTO uphol di ng the val i di t yof a r eexami ned pat ent whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t l at erf i nds i nval i d. Thi s i s essent i al l y what occur s when acour t f i nds a pat ent i nval i d af t er t he PTO has gr ant ed

    i t . . . . . [ D] i f f er ent r esul t s bet ween t he t wo f or umsmay be ent i r el y r easonabl e. And, i f t he di st r i ctcour t det er mi nes a pat ent i s not i nval i d, t he PTOshoul d cont i nue i t s r eexami nat i on because, of cour se,t he t wo f or ums have di f f er ent st andar ds of pr oof f ordet er mi ni ng i nval i di t y.

    I d. at 1428- 29. Nonet hel ess, a par t y chal l engi ng t he

    val i di t y of a pat ent shoul ders an enhanced bur den t o t he

    extent t he ar gument f or i nval i di t y i s based on t he same

    pr i or ar t consi der ed by t he PTO. See Tokai Cor p. , 632 F. 3d

    at 1367; see al so Power Oasi s, I nc. v. T- Mobi l e USA, I nc. ,

    522 F. 3d 1299, 1304 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ( When no pr i or ar t

    other t han t hat whi ch was consi dered by t he PTO exami ner i s

    r el i ed on by t he at t acker , he has t he added bur den of

    over comi ng t he def er ence t hat i s due to a qual i f i ed

    government agency presumed t o have proper l y done i t s j ob

    . . . . ) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 28 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    29/52

    29

    4. Pat ent I nf r i ngement

    To prove desi gn pat ent i nf r i ngement , a pat ent hol der must

    est abl i sh t hat an or di nar y obser ver , f ami l i ar wi t h t he pr i or ar t

    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 patent ed desi gn. Ri char dson v.

    St anl ey Wor ks, I nc. , 597 F. 3d 1288, 1295 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) .

    I nf r i ngement i s a quest i on of f act , whi ch a [ pat ent hol der ]

    must pr ove by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence. I d. The

    or di nar y obser ver t est appl i es t o t he pat ent ed desi gn i n i t s

    ent i r et y, as i t i s cl ai med, and mi nor di f f er ences cannot

    pr event a f i ndi ng of i nf r i ngement . Cr ocs, I nc. v. I nt l Tr ade

    Com n, 598 F. 3d 1294, 1303 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) .

    B. Anal ysi s

    1.

    Cl ai m Const r uct i on

    As an i ni t i al mat t er , t he Cour t decl i nes t o t r ansl at e t he

    132 Pat ent s cl ai m i nt o wor ds. Ver bal descr i pt i ons of desi gn

    pat ent cl ai ms are not necessary wher e, as her e, t he cl ai m i s

    bet t er r epr esent ed by . . . [ an] i l l ust r at i on. Dobson v.

    Dor nan, 118 U. S. 10, 14 ( 1886) . Al so, t he Feder al Ci r cui t has

    caut i oned, and cont i nues t o caut i on, t r i al cour t s about

    excessi ve r el i ance on a det ai l ed ver bal descr i pt i on i n a desi gn

    i nf r i ngement case. Cr ocs, I nc. , 598 F. 3d at 1302. Thi s i s

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 29 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    30/52

    30

    because mi spl aced r el i ance on a det ai l ed ver bal descr i pt i on of

    t he cl ai med desi gn r i sks undue emphasi s on par t i cul ar f eat ur es

    of t he desi gn r at her t han t he exami nat i on of t he desi gn as a

    whol e, and [ d] epi ct i ons of t he cl ai med desi gn i n wor ds can

    easi l y di st r act f r om t he pr oper i nf r i ngement anal ysi s of t he

    or nament al pat t er ns and dr awi ngs. I d.

    Her e, t he dr awi ngs i ncl uded i n t he 132 Pat ent adequat el y

    set f or t h t he cl ai med desi gn. As di scussed bel ow, 16 t he Cour t

    f i nds t hat t hese dr awi ngs depi ct onl y or nament al el ement s and

    t her ef or e al l of t he depi ct ed el ement s are par t of t he pat ent

    cl ai m. No t r ansl at i on i s necessar y because t he i l l ust r at i ons i n

    t he 132 Pat ent ar e easy t o under st and wi t hout a ver bal

    descr i pt i on. A j ur y can count t he number of per i pher al di amonds

    and obser ve t hat t he per i pheral di amonds are smal l er t han t he

    cent er di amond. A j ur y al so can easi l y observe t hat t he

    per i pher al di amonds have a di f f er ent cut f r om t he cent er

    di amond. Tr ansl at i ng t he 132 Pat ent s dr awi ng i nt o wor ds woul d

    not be hel pf ul t o t he j ur y and mi ght l ead a j ur y t o f i xat e t oo

    much on speci f i c el ement s such as cut and count r ather

    consi der i ng t he desi gn as a whol e. Thus, t he Cour t f i nds t hat

    16 See i nf ra Par t I I . B. 2. a.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 30 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    31/52

    31

    t he i l l ust r at i ons i n t he 132 Pat ent suf f i ci ent l y set f or t h t he

    cl ai m and t her ef or e a ver bal descr i pt i on i s not necessar y. 17

    2. Prest i ge s Mot i on f or Summary J udgment

    a. The 132 Pat ent Desi gn i s Or nament al

    Pr est i ge cl ai ms t hat t he 132 Pat ent i s i nval i d because i t

    depi ct s a f unct i onal desi gn. Pr est i ge bases i t s ar gument on

    deposi t i on t est i mony of i nvent or Rocky Wong. Wong t est i f i ed

    t hat , bef or e choosi ng t he desi gn depi ct ed i n t he 132 Pat ent , he

    t r i ed out var i ous di amond ar r angement s wi t h di f f erent number s of

    di amonds and di f f er ent combi nat i ons of cut s. ( Mar t i n Af f . Ex. B

    ( Rocky Wong Deposi t i on Tr anscr i pt ( Wong Dep. Tr . ) ) , at 72: 1-

    74: 10. ) Wong st ated t hat he used a l i ght box t o conduct

    r ef r act i on t est s and det er mi ned t hat , i n hi s opi ni on, t he

    f ul l - cut cent er st one sur r ounded by ni ne si ngl e- cut st ones

    l ooked t he best . ( I d. ) Wong al so agr eed t hat t he 132 Pat ent

    ar r angement perf ormed t he best because i t had t he best

    r ef r act i on. (I d. at 74: 4- 9. ) Mor eover , he st at ed t hat whi l e

    ar r angement s wi t h more or f ewer t han ni ne per i pheral di amonds

    l ook[ ed] good, t he desi gn depi ct ed i n t he 132 Pat ent was

    per f ect . ( Wong Dep. Tr . 108: 7- 16. )

    17 Al t hough t he Cour t decl i nes t o t r ansl at e t he pat ent cl ai m i nt owor ds, at t r i al t he Cour t may f i nd i t hel pf ul t o poi nt out. . . f or a j ur y . . . var i ous f eat ur es of t he cl ai med desi gn ast hey r el ate t o t he accused desi gn. Egypt i an Goddess, 543 F. 3dat 680.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 31 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    32/52

    32

    As not ed above, t he or nament al r equi r ement i s di r ect ed t o

    t he appear ance of an ar t i cl e of manuf act ur e. L. A. Gear , I nc.

    v. ThomMcAn Shoe Co. , 988 F. 2d 1117, 1123 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) .

    Prest i ge cont ends t hat t he appear ance of t he 132 Pat ent i s

    i t sel f a f unct i onal el ement . Thi s ar gument i ncor r ect l y bl ur s

    t he di st i nct i on bet ween or nament al and f unct i onal desi gns.

    Admi t t edl y, Wong somet i mes descr i bed t he desi gn of t he 132

    Pat ent i n l anguage t hat super f i ci al l y mi ght suggest a f unct i onal

    desi gn. He admi t t ed t hat hi s desi gn per f ormed t he best and

    st at ed t hat he used a l i ght box t o test var i ous ar r angement s i n

    sear ch of t he best r ef r act i on. ( Wong Dep. Tr . , at 74: 4- 9. )

    But t hese st at ement s do not change the f act t hat t he ul t i mat e

    pur pose of t he 132 Pat ent desi gn i s t o have a pl easi ng

    appear ancea qui nt essent i al l y ornament al pur pose. Si mpl y

    because an i nvent or exper i ment s wi t h al t er nat i ve desi gns or uses

    r udi ment ary t ool s and t est s does not mean t he resul t i ng desi gn

    i s f unct i onal . Presumabl y, most desi gns ar e devel oped not on a

    whi m but r at her t hr ough some pr ocess of t r i al and er r or whet her

    by usi ng a l i ght box, consumer surveys, or si mpl y t aki ng a f ew

    st eps back and squi nt i ng at t he desi gn f r om a di st ance. The

    r el evant i nqui r y i s t he nat ur e of t he desi gn, not how t he desi gn

    was devel oped. Her e, t he desi gn of t he 132 Pat ent i s

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 32 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    33/52

    33

    unquest i onabl y or nament al i t i s cl ust er of di amonds ar r anged

    sol el y t o be pl easi ng t o t he eye. 18

    The cases Pr est i ge ci t es ar e i napposi t e. I n Har t co Eng g,

    I nc v. Wang s I nt l , I nc. , 142 F. App x 455 ( Fed. Ci r . 2005)

    ( not r epor t ed) , t he Feder al Ci r cui t hel d t hat cer t ai n desi gn

    el ement s of a decor at i ve mar i ne- pr opel l er devi ce t hat at t aches

    t o t he t r ai l er hi t ch of a vehi cl e and spi ns f r om t he f or ce of

    movi ng ai r si mi l ar t o a wi ndmi l l wer e f unct i onal and t her ef or e

    coul d not benef i t f r om desi gn pat ent pr ot ect i on. I d. at 456.

    The cour t not ed t hat desi gn patent prot ect i on ext ended onl y t o

    t he number of t he bl ades and f our ci r cul ar f eat ur es r at her

    t han t he general hi t chcover concept t hat merel y mi mi cs a

    pr opel l er . I d. at 458. Pr est i ge cont ends t hat t he novel t y

    hi t hcover desi gned t o mi mi c a pr opel l er i s anal ogous t o a

    cl ust er of di amonds desi gned t o mi mi c a l ar ge sol i t ai r e. But

    t her e i s a cl ear di f f er ence. The pr opel l er f eat ur es i n Har t co

    were f ound t o be f unct i onal because t hey actual l y per f ormed a

    f unct i ont hey not onl y caused t he hi t chcover t o l ook l i ke a

    18 Prest i ge emphasi zes t hat t he 132 Pat ent does not depi ctanythi ng besi des t he f r ee- f l oat i ng di amond ar r angement , [ n] oset t i ngs, pr eci ous met al s, al t er nat i ve spat i al ar r angement s oral t er nat i ve number s of st ones are depi ct ed i n ei t her of t he t wo 132 Pat ent dr awi ngs. ( Pr est i ge s Memo. , at 11. ) The Cour tf ai l s t o see how t hi s argument suggest s t hat t he desi gn i sf unct i onal . I f anyt hi ng, t he absence of t echni cal det ai l s abouthow t he ar r angement shoul d be composed, i ndi cat es t hat t he 132Pat ent was concer ned onl y wi t h t he appear ance and nothi ng more.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 33 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    34/52

    34

    pr opel l er but al so made i t f unct i on l i ke a pr opel l er . I n

    cont r ast , t he di amond ar r angement i n the 132 Patent has no

    f unct i on, i t si mpl y l ooks pr et t y. 19

    Pr est i ge al so ci t es El mer v. I CC Fabr i cat i ng, I nc. , 67 F. 3d

    1571 ( Fed. Ci r . 1995) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat desi gn pat ent

    pr ot ect i on i s l i mi t ed t o what was act ual l y depi ct ed i n [ a]

    pat ent and coul d not extend [ t he pat ent s] pr ot ect i on t o cover

    pr oduct s t hat di d not i ncl ude al l t he or nament al el ement s t hat

    had been cl ai med. ( Prest i ge s Memo. , at 9- 10. ) The Cour t

    f ai l s t o see how El mer suppor t s Prest i ge s argument besi des

    si mpl y st at i ng t he basi c pr i nci pl e t hat desi gn pat ent s cover

    onl y or nament al f eat ur es, not f unct i onal f eat ur es. I f anyt hi ng,

    El mer under mi nes Pr est i ge s ar gument . Prest i ge emphasi zes that

    t he 132 Pat ent does not depi ct anythi ng besi des t he f r ee-

    f l oat i ng di amond ar r angement , [ n] o set t i ngs, pr eci ous met al s,

    19 Mor eover , even i f t he di amond ar r angement s l i ght r ef r act i onperf ormance or mi mi cr y of a sol i t ai r e di amond were consi deredf uncti onal , Pr est i ge s ar gument woul d st i l l f ai l . Thi s i sbecause where, as here, t here are sever al ways t o achi eve t hef unct i on of an ar t i cl e of manuf act ur e, t he desi gn of t he ar t i cl ei s mor e l i kel y t o ser ve a pr i mar i l y or nament al pur pose. L. A.Gear , 988 F. 2d at 1123 ( hol di ng t hat cer t ai n el ement s of anathl et i c shoe desi gn were or nament al even t hough t hey al soser ved a f unct i onal pur pose because t here were ot her ways ofdesi gni ng at hl et i c shoes t o per f or m t he f unct i ons of t heel ement s of t he . . . desi gn and [ i ] n t oday s mar ket pl ace, t hepr i macy of appear ance i n t he desi gn of shoes [ cannot ] be i gnoredwhen anal yzi ng f unct i onal i t y) . Not wi t hst andi ng Rocky Wong ssubj ect i ve pr ef er ence f or a par t i cul ar desi gn, t her e i s nodi sput e t hat t her e ar e mul t i pl e ways t o creat e a cl ust er di amondar r angement t hat mi mi cs a l ar ge sol i t ai r e.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 34 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    35/52

    35

    al t er nat i ve spat i al ar r angement s or al t er nat i ve number s of

    st ones are depi ct ed i n ei t her of t he t wo 132 Pat ent dr awi ngs.

    ( I d. at 11. ) But , as El mer poi nt s out , i ncl udi ng f unct i onal

    f eat ur es i n a desi gn pat ent woul d have ef f ect i vel y l i mi t ed t he

    scope of t he pat ent cl ai m. El mer , 67 F. 3d at 1577. The f act

    t hat t he 132 Pat ent does not cont ai n t echni cal det ai l s

    under l i nes t he f act t hat i t was i nt ended t o show onl y t he

    or nament al f eat ur es of t he desi gn.

    Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he desi gn depi ct ed i n

    t he 132 Pat ent i s or nament al . Prest i ge s mot i on f or summar y

    j udgment on t hi s i ssue i s deni ed.

    b. Ther e I s a Mat er i al I ssue of Fact Wi t hRespect t o I nf r i ngement

    Pr est i ge cont ends t hat i t i s ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment

    on t he quest i on of i nf r i ngement f or t wo mai n r easons. Fi r st ,

    t he 132 Pat ent shows di amonds f l oat i ng i n space, and the

    dr awi ngs di scl ose no ot her or nament at i on or mechani sm asi de f r om

    t he naked di amonds and t hei r posi t i ons and si zes r el at i ve t o

    each ot her wher eas Pr est i ge s pr oduct s i ncl ude di amonds as

    onl y one par t of a l ar ger whol e, a r i ng or ear r i ng whi ch al so

    i ncl udes a par t i cul ar and uni que pr eci ous met al st one set t i ng.

    ( Pr est i ge s Memo. , at 13. ) Second, Pr est i ge not es t hat t he 132

    Pat ent shows a 9+1 di amond arr angement wher eas Pr est i ge makes

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 35 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    36/52

    36

    8+1 and 10+1 r i ngs and ear r i ngs but does not make or mar ket any

    9+1 pr oduct . ( I d. )

    The f i r st ar gument r est s on t he f aul t y not i on t hat

    Pr est i ge s ear r i ngs and r i ngs cannot i nf r i nge t he 132 Pat ent

    because t he patent shows onl y a di amond ar r angement i sol ated

    f r om a f i ni shed pr oduct . A desi gn i s pat ent abl e even i f i t

    depi ct s onl y a por t i on of an ar t i cl e of manuf act ur e, and a

    desi gn pat ent can be i nf r i nged i f i t s desi gn i s i ncor por at ed as

    a f eat ur e of an ar t i cl e of manuf act ur e. See I n r e Zahn, 617

    F. 2d 261, 268 ( C. C. P. A. 1980) ( Sect i on 171 aut hor i zes pat ent s

    on or nament al desi gns f or ar t i cl es of manuf act ur e. Whi l e t he

    desi gn must be embodi ed i n some ar t i cl es, t he st atut e i s not

    l i mi t ed t o desi gns f or compl et e ar t i cl es, or di scret e

    ar t i cl es, and cer t ai nl y not t o ar t i cl es separ at el y sol d . . . .

    No sound aut hor i t y has been ci t ed f or any l i mi t at i on on how a

    desi gn i s t o be embodi ed i n an ar t i cl e of manuf act ur e. ) ; see

    al so Ti mes Thr ee Cl ot hi er , LLC v. Spanx, I nc. , No. 13 Ci v. 2157,

    ( DLC) , 13 Ci v. 7260 ( DLC) , 2014 WL 1688130, at *8 ( S. D. N. Y. Apr .

    29, 2014) ( [ A] pat ent ee may cl ai m a desi gn f or a por t i on of an

    ar t i cl e of manuf act ur e and need not cl ai m a desi gn f or a

    compl et e ar t i cl e. ) ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

    omi t t ed) . Al t hough t he 132 Pat ent depi ct s f r ee- f l oat i ng

    di amonds wi t hout a set t i ng, t he pat ent cl ear l y st at es t hat i t

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 36 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    37/52

    37

    depi ct s an ornament al desi gn f or . . . di amond j ewel l er y not a

    col l ect i on of di amonds f l oat i ng i n space. ( See 132 Pat ent , at

    1 ( emphasi s added) . ) Thus ther e i s no l egal basi s f or grant i ng

    summary j udgment on i nf r i ngement si mpl y because t he al l eged

    i nf r i ngi ng pr oduct s ar e f i ni shed pi eces of j ewel r y and t he 132

    Pat ent shows onl y a por t i on of a f i ni shed j ewel r y pr oduct . 20

    Wi t h r espect t o Pr est i ge s second ar gument , t he quest i on of

    whet her t he 132 Pat ent s 9+1 desi gn i s suf f i ci ent l y si mi l ar

    t o Pr est i ge s 10+1 and 8+1 desi gns, i s a mat t er f or t he j ur y

    t o deci de. Pat ent i nf r i ngement depends on t he appear ance of a

    desi gn as a whol e, and [ t ] here can be no i nf r i ngement based on

    t he si mi l ar i t y of speci f i c f eat ur es i f t he over al l appear ance of

    t he desi gns ar e di ssi mi l ar . OddzOn Pr ods. , I nc. v. J ust Toys,

    I nc. , 122 F. 3d 1396, 1405 ( Fed. Ci r . 1997) . Li kewi se, mi nor

    di f f er ences bet ween a pat ent ed desi gn and an accused ar t i cl e s

    desi gn cannot . . . pr event a f i ndi ng of i nf r i ngement . I nt l

    Seaway Tr adi ng Corp. v. Wal l gr eens Corp. , 589 F. 3d 1233, 1243

    ( Fed. Ci r . 2009) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

    omi t t ed) . Havi ng r evi ewed t he 132 Pat ent and Prest i ge s

    al l egedl y i nf r i ngi ng pr oduct s, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t her e ar e

    enough si mi l ar i t i es t o gi ve r i se t o a mat er i al i ssue of f act as

    20 I n f act , as not ed above, i ncl udi ng mor e f eat ur es i n t he pat entappl i cat i on dr awi ng woul d have ef f ect i vel y l i mi t ed t he scope of[ t he] pat ent cl ai m. El mer , 67 F. 3d at 1577.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 37 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    38/52

    38

    t o whet her Prest i ge has i nf r i nged t he 132 Pat ent . Thi s f i ndi ng

    i s but t r essed by addi t i onal evi dence t hat Def endant s have

    pr esent ed. I n par t i cul ar , t her e i s evi dence t hat Prest i ge

    empl oyees once bel i eved t hat t he quest i on of i nf r i ngement was a

    cl ose cal l . (See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 35, at 2. ) Al so,

    Prest i ge appar ent l y t hought t he desi gns coul d be mi st aken f or

    each ot her when i t accused A. V. J ewel r y of i nf r i ngi ng t he Uni t y

    desi gn by sel l i ng j ewel r y i ncor por at i ng t he 132 Pat ent . ( Second

    Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 32. ) Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t deni es

    Prest i ge s mot i on f or summary j udgment on t he i ssue of patent

    i nf r i ngement . 21

    3. Def endants Mot i on f or Summary J udgment

    Def endant s move f or par t i al summary j udgment di smi ss i ng

    Pr est i ge s cl ai m t hat t he 132 Pat ent i s i nval i d because i t was

    ant i ci pat ed or r ender ed obvi ous by pr i or ar t . For t he r easons

    di scussed bel ow, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t her e i s no i ssue of

    mat er i al f act as t o t he val i di t y of t he 132 Pat ent i n l i ght of

    t he pr i or ar t . Accor di ngl y, Def endant s mot i on f or par t i al

    summary j udgment i s grant ed.

    21 Because Pr est i ge s mot i on f or summary j udgment on Def endant sLanham Act count er cl ai m i s der i vat i ve of i t s ar gument s r egar di ngi nf r i ngement and val i di t y, t he Cour t al so deni es Prest i ge smot i on wi t h r espect t o t he Lanham Act count er cl ai m.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 38 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    39/52

    39

    a. Pr est i ge s Bur den of Pr oof

    As di scussed above, t he 132 Pat ent enj oys a pr esumpt i on of

    val i di t y, and Pr est i ge has t he bur den of pr esent i ng cl ear and

    convi nci ng evi dence t hat t he pat ent i s i nval i d. Pr est i ge cannot

    pr evai l i f i t s evi dence shows onl y t hat t he 132 Pat ent mi ght be

    i nval i d. Even i f Pr est i ge pr esent s evi dence showi ng t hat t he

    132 Pat ent i s mor e l i kel y t han not i nval i d, i t cannot pr evai l

    unl ess t he evi dence meet s t he demandi ng cl ear and convi nci ng

    st andar d. See Pr i ce v. Symsek, 988 F. 2d 1187, 1191 ( Fed. Ci r .

    1993) ( A requi r ement of pr oof by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence

    i mposes a heavi er bur den upon a l i t i gant t han t hat i mposed by

    r equi r i ng pr oof by pr eponderant evi dence but a somewhat l i ght er

    bur den t han t hat i mposed by r equi r i ng pr oof beyond a r easonabl e

    doubt . ) ; Radi o Cor p. of Am. v. Radi o Eng' g Labs. , 293 U. S. 1, 8

    ( 1934) ( [ O] ne ot her wi se an i nf r i nger who assai l s t he val i di t y

    of a pat ent f ai r upon i t s f ace bear s a heavy bur den of

    per suasi on, and f ai l s unl ess hi s evi dence has mor e t han a

    dubi ous pr eponder ance. ) . Al t hough t he pat ent chal l enger bear s

    t he bur den of pr oof , once the pat ent chal l enger has present ed a

    pr i ma f aci e case of i nval i di t y t he pat ent hol der woul d be

    wel l advi sed t o i nt r oduce evi dence suf f i ci ent t o r ebut t hat of

    t he chal l enger . Pf i zer , I nc. v. Apot ex, I nc. , 480 F. 3d 1348,

    1360 ( Fed. Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Or t hoki net i cs, I nc. v. Saf et y

    Tr avel Chai r s, I nc. , 806 F. 2d 1565, 1570 ( Fed. Ci r . 1986) ) .

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 39 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    40/52

    40

    Nonet hel ess, t he bur den of per suasi on never shi f t s t o t he pat ent

    hol der and t he pr esumpt i on of val i di t y remai ns i nt act and t he

    ul t i mat e bur den of pr ovi ng i nval i di t y remai ns wi t h t he

    chal l enger t hr oughout t he l i t i gat i on Pf i zer , 480 F. 3d at 1360

    I d. ( quot i ng MasHami l t on Gr oup v. LaGar d, I nc. , 156 F. 3d 1206,

    1216 ( Fed. Ci r . 1998) ) .

    b. The Pr i or Ar t

    Thr oughout i t s br i ef i ng, Pr est i ge st at es t hat t he pr i or ar t

    does not speak f or i t sel f . ( See Memor andum of Law i n Opposi t i on

    t o Def endant s Mot i on f or Par t i al Summary J udgment , dated Oct .

    15, 2013 [ dkt . no. 99] ( Pr est i ge s Opp. ) , at 1, 10, 12. )

    Thus, Pr est i ge appar ent l y does not cl ai m t hat t he pr i or ar t

    al one pr ovi des suf f i ci ent evi dence of i nval i di t y. Nonet hel ess,

    t o t he ext ent Pr est i ge r el i es on t he t en pr i or ar t r ef er ences

    submi t t ed i n connect i on wi t h i t s r eexami nat i on r equest , t he

    Cour t f i nds t hat t hese pr i or ar t r ef er ences do not const i t ut e

    cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence of ant i ci pat i on or obvi ousness.

    I n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on, t he Cour t not es t hat t he PTO

    consi der ed t hi s pr i or ar t i n bot h r eexami nat i on pr oceedi ngs.

    Thi s i s si gni f i cant because a par t y seeki ng t o i nval i dat e a

    pat ent f aces an enhanced bur den i f i t s argument r el i es sol el y

    on pr i or ar t t hat t he PTO al r eady consi der ed. See Tokai Cor p.

    v. East on Ent er pr i ses, I nc. , 632 F. 3d 1358, 1367 ( Fed. Ci r .

    2011) .

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 40 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    41/52

    41

    However , even i f t he Cour t di d not gi ve def er ence t o t he

    f i ndi ngs of t he PTO, 22 t he Cour t woul d st i l l concl ude t hat t he

    pr i or ar t r ef er ences do not pr ovi de cl ear and convi nci ng

    evi dence of ant i ci pat i on or obvi ousness. Wi t h r espect t o

    ant i ci pat i on, t he 132 Pat ent s si ngl e- cut per i pher al di amonds

    i s a f eat ur e t hat i s not pr esent i n t he Li n Pat ent , whi ch onl y

    cont ai ns f ul l - cut di amonds. Based on t he pr i or ar t al one, t her e

    i s no r eason t o bel i eve t hat t hi s i s onl y a t r i vi al di f f er ence.

    As f or obvi ousness, t her e i s not hi ng i n t he pr i or ar t al one

    whi ch i ndi cat es whet her or not i t woul d be obvi ous t o sur r ound a

    f ul l - cut cent r al di amond wi t h si ngl e- cut per i pher al di amonds.

    Accor di ngl y, Pr est i ge cannot meet i t s bur den of pr ovi ng

    i nval i di t y unl ess i t pr esent s addi t i onal evi dence of

    ant i ci pat i on and obvi ousness. I f , as Pr est i ge concedes, t he

    pr i or ar t does not speak f or i t sel f , t hen Pr est i ge has t he

    bur den of pr esent i ng evi dence t o speak f or i t .

    c. Ant i ci pat i on

    Prest i ge advances sever al ar gument s t o show t hat t her e i s a

    f act ual di sput e r egar di ng whether t he 132 Pat ent was

    22 The par t i es have devot ed si gni f i cant ar gument t o whet her ornot t he Cour t shoul d consi der t he f i ndi ngs of t he PTO i n t her eexami nat i on pr oceedi ngs. The Cour t consi der s t he PTO sf i ndi ngs t o t he extent t hey pr ovi des hel pf ul gui dance andbackgr oundespeci al l y wi t h r espect t o t he pr i or ar t .Nonet hel ess, t he Cour t s r ul i ng on Prest i ge s summar y j udgmentmot i on woul d be t he same regardl ess of t he PTO s r eexami nat i ons.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 41 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    42/52

    42

    ant i ci pat ed by pr i or ar t . Fi r st , Pr est i ge t akes i ssue wi t h t he

    PTO s det er mi nat i on t hat t he 132 Pat ent was not ant i ci pat ed

    because none of t he pr i or ar t r ef er ences i ncl uded a cl ust er - t op

    desi gn wi t h a si ngl e f ul l - cut di amond sur r ounded by per i pher al

    si ngl e- cut di amonds. ( Pr est i ge s Opp. , at 11. ) Pr est i ge

    r ej ect s t he concl usi on t hat an or di nar y desi gner ski l l ed i n t he

    ar t woul d f i nd t he cut of t he st ones a cruci al cl ai m of t he 132

    Pat ent . ( I d. ) Al t hough t he or di nar y desi gner ski l l ed i n t he

    ar t st andar d appl i es t o t he obvi ousness, not ant i ci pat i on, t he

    Cour t pr esumes t hat Prest i ge means t hat an ordi nary obser ver

    woul d not not i ce t he di f f er ence i n t he di amond cut s. I n suppor t

    of t hi s posi t i on, Pr est i ge ci t es a decl ar at i on of i t s empl oyee,

    Sal l y Cr i t i des, a j ewel r y mer chandi ser . Al t hough Cr i t i des does

    not di scuss speci f i c pi eces of pr i or ar t , she makes gener al

    st at ement s about how t he pr i or ar t shoul d be i nt er pr et ed.

    Cr i t i des s t at es t hat her 30- pl us year s of exper i ence have

    shown her t hat

    t he ar r angement of t he st ones i s t he most i mport antaspect of t he desi gn. How t he st ones ar e arr anged,how many st ones are used, t he si zes of t he st onesr el at i ve t o one anot her , t he cant i ng of t he st ones

    r el at i ve t o one anot her and how t he st ones ar e set ar eal l pr i mar y f act or s I consi der when I am desi gni ngj ewel r y.

    ( Cr i t i des Decl . 4- 5. ) Cr i t i des goes on t o st at e t hat

    [ t ] he act ual cut of t he st one, as wel l as such ot herf act s l i ke col or and cl ar i t y, i n t er ms of desi gni ng

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 42 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    43/52

    43

    cl ust er t op di amond j ewel r y where t he goal i s t o makemany smal l er st ones appear as a si ngl e l ar ger st one,ar e al l secondar y consi der at i ons, i f at al l , because,as i s t he case wi t h t he ar r angement s at i ssue i n t hi scase, any cut , cl ar i t y, or col or st ones on t he

    per i pher y of t he desi gn wi l l st i l l add t o t he over al li mpr essi on t hat t he j ewel r y i s composed of a si ngl el ar ger st one.

    ( Cr i t i des Decl . 6. )

    Cr i t i des s decl ar at i on pr ovi des some evi dence t o count er

    Def endant s cont ent i on ( and t he PTO s det er mi nat i on) t hat t he

    132 Pat ent i s novel and di st i ngui shabl e f r om pr i or ar t because

    i t combi nes f ul l - cut and si ngl e- cut di amonds. Nonet hel ess, t he

    Cr i t i des decl ar at i on, by i t sel f or i n combi nat i on wi t h ot her

    evi dence, i s not suf f i ci ent t o def eat Def endant s mot i on f or

    summary j udgment on ant i ci pat i on. The l aw has l ong l ooked wi t h

    di sf avor upon i nval i dat i ng pat ent s on t he basi s of mer e

    t est i moni al evi dence absent ot her evi dence that cor r obor at es

    t hat t est i mony. Fi nni gan Cor p. v. I nt ' l Tr ade Comm' n, 180 F. 3d

    1354, 1366 ( Fed. Ci r . 1999) . Such t est i moni al evi dence i s

    par t i cul ar l y di sf avor ed i f i t i s gi ven by an i nt er est ed par t y,

    such as Cr i t i des. See i d. , see al so Schumer v. Lab. Comput er

    Sys. , I nc. , 308 F. 3d 1304, 1315- 16 ( Fed. Ci r . 2002) ( [ I ] f t he

    t est i mony [ concer ni ng ant i ci pat i on] r el at es t o pr i or i nvent i on

    and i s f r om an i nt er est ed par t y, as her e, i t must be

    cor r obor at ed. ) . Mor eover , t he Cour t must be mi ndf ul of t he

    under l yi ng bur dens of pr oof because t he evi dent i ar y bur dens

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 43 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    44/52

    44

    t hat t he r especti ve par t i es wi l l bear at t r i al gui de di st r i ct

    cour t s i n t hei r det er mi nat i on of summar y j udgment mot i ons.

    Cent r o De La Comuni dad Hi spana De Locust Val l ey v. Town of

    Oyst er Bay, 954 F. Supp. 2d 127, 134 ( E. D. N. Y. 2013) ( quot i ng

    Br ady v. Town of Col chest er, 863 F. 2d 205, 211 ( 2d Ci r . 1988) ) .

    Here, Prest i ge must overcome the 132 Pat ent s presumpt i on of

    val i di t y and pr ove i nval i di t y by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence.

    The Cr i t i des Decl ar at i on mi ght cast some doubt on t he novel t y of

    t he 132 Pat ent , but no r easonabl e j ur y woul d consi der t he

    decl ar at i on t o be cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence of i nval i di t y.

    Pr est i ge al so submi t s a decl ar at i on f r om i t s Vi ce Pr esi dent

    of Sal es, J ef f r ey Cohen, i n whi ch he cl ai ms t hat t he or di nar y

    cust omer does not pay much at t ent i on t o di f f erent di amond cut s.

    Cohen st ates:

    I have . . . f ound t hat t he t ypi cal buyer t o whom I amsel l i ng j ewel r y, i ncl udi ng t he t ype of j ewel r y ati ssue i n t hi s case, i s a per son who can di st i ngui shbetween si ngl e- cut and f ul l - cut di amonds whenspeci f i cal l y pr esent ed wi t h t hem, as Def endant ssuggest ; however , I have f ound i n my exper i ence thatsuch a per son i s mor e l i kel y t o f i r st obser ve andcomment on the ar r angement of t he st ones, how manyst ones are used i n t hat ar r angement , and t he si ze oft he st ones used. I ndeed, i t has been my exper i ence

    t hat t he cut of smal l per i pher y st ones i n anar r angement of t he t ypes at i ssue i n t hi s case i s nota maj or detai l t hat any di amond j ewel r y buyer t o whomI have sol d pr oduct s not i ces when pr esent ed wi t h acl ust er arr angement of di amonds.

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 44 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    45/52

    45

    ( Cohen Decl . 6. ) Even const r ui ng t hi s st at ement i n t he l i ght

    most f avor abl e t o Pr est i ge, Cohen s st at ement i s not evi dence

    t hat an or di nar y observer woul d be decei ved i nt o t hi nki ng t hat

    t he 132 Pat ent was t he same as pr i or ar t i n f act , qui t e t he

    opposi t e. Cohen st at es t hat t he t ypi cal buyer ( whi ch he

    pr esumabl y equat es wi t h an or di nar y observer ) can t el l t he

    di f f er ence bet ween f ul l - cut and si ngl e- cut di amonds. But

    r egar dl ess of whet her a di amond s cut i s t he f i r st t hi ng a

    cust omer not i ces or a maj or det ai l , Cohen hi msel f admi t s t hat

    i t i s unl i kel y that someone wi l l be decei ved by a di amond

    ar r angement t hat i s si mi l ar t o ot her desi gns i n cer t ai n r espect s

    but whi ch cont ai ns di f f er ent cuts. Mor eover , even i f Cohen s

    decl ar at i on i ncl uded evi dence of ant i ci pat i on, i t woul d car r y

    l i t t l e wei ght because, l i ke Cr i t i des, Cohen i s an i nt er est ed

    par t y, and Pr est i ge has not of f er ed any addi t i onal evi dence t o

    cor r obor at e hi s cl ai ms.

    Thi r d, Pr est i ge cl ai ms t hat Def endant s t hemsel ves admi t

    t hat t her e ar e f act ual di sput es r egar di ng t he pr i or ar t because

    Def endant s memorandum st ates t hat cer t ai n pr i or ar t document s

    show speci al cut s whi ch cannot be det er mi ned whet her t hey f i t

    t he def i ni t i on of bei ng ei t her f ul l - cut or si ngl e- cut , as t her e

    ar e i nf i ni t e number s of cut st yl es t hat can be i mpar t ed t o

    gemst ones. ( Pr est i ge s Opp. , at 12 ( ci t i ng Def s. Memo. , at 5

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 45 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    46/52

    46

    n. 5. ) ; see al so i d. at 12 ( Not onl y does t hi s st at ement admi t

    t hat t he pr i or ar t does not speak f or i t sel f , but i t hi ghl i ght s

    a f act ual di sput e r egar di ng ant i ci pat i on. ) . ) However , t her e i s

    no i ndi cat i on t hat t hi s uncer t ai nt y concer ns a mat er i al quest i on

    of f act . The pr i or art r ef er ence i n quest i on, t he Fai r br ot her

    pat ent , shows a col l ect i on of di amonds of equal si ze wi t h t he

    same cut . ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 9) . Gi ven t he cl ear

    di f f er ences bet ween t he Fai r br ot her pat ent and t he 132 Pat ent

    ( whi ch i ncl udes di amonds wi t h di f f er ent si zes and di f f er ent

    cut s) , t he cut of t he di amonds i n t he Fai r br ot her r ef er ence i s

    not a mat er i al quest i on of f act . As Def endant s poi nt out , t he

    f act r emai ns t hat [ n] ot a si ngl e pi ece of pr i or ar t ci t ed by

    Prest i ge shows t he ar r angement of a cent er st one that i s

    comparat i vel y l arger and whi ch i s sur r ounded by any number of

    si ngl e- cut di amonds. ( Def s. Memo. , at 5. )

    Fi nal l y, Prest i ge seeks t o def eat summar y j udgment by

    st at i ng t hat i t wi l l pr esent at t r i al exper t t est i mony t o

    addr ess t he 132 Pat ent and pr i or ar t cl ai ms. ( Pr est i ge s

    Opp. , at 7; see al so Pr est i ge s 56. 1 Count er - St at ement 115,

    118, 121, 125- 27, 129- 30. ) Prest i ge does not submi t any exper t

    af f i davi t s or even descr i be t he t est i mony i t expect s i t s

    hypot het i cal exper t s t o pr ovi de. Vague r ef er ences t o pot ent i al

    Case 1:11-cv-02930-LAP-DCF Document 106 Filed 09/15/14 Page 46 of 52

  • 8/11/2019 Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

    47/52

    47

    exper t t est i mony cannot def eat summary j udgment . 23 See Goenaga

    v. Mar ch of Di mes Bi r t h Def ect s Found. , 51 F. 3d 14, 18 ( 2d Ci r .

    1995) ( Once t he movi ng par t y has made a proper l y suppor t ed

    showi ng suf f i ci ent t o suggest t he absence of any genui ne i ssue

    as t o a mat er i al f act , t he nonmovi ng par t y, i n or der t o def eat

    summar y j udgment , must come f or war d wi t h evi dence t hat woul d be

    suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a j ur y ver di ct i n hi s f avor . The mot i on

    wi l l not be def eat ed mer el y . . . on t he basi s of conj ect ur e or

    surmi se. The par t y opposi ng summary j udgment may not r el y si mpl y

    on concl usory st at ement s or on cont ent i ons t hat t he af f i davi t s

    suppor t i ng the mot i on ar e not cr edi bl e, or upon the mer e

    al l egat i ons or deni al s of t he adver se par t y' s pl eadi ng. )

    ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; El sr ot h v.

    J ohnson & J ohnson, 700 F. Supp. 151, 162 ( S. D. N. Y. 1988)

    ( [ N] owhere i n t he papers submi t t ed on t hese mot i ons, however ,

    does counsel of f er f act s t o suppor t [