Post on 03-Jun-2018
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
1/166
6243892.1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION____________________________________________
)
KIMBER CAKEWARE, LLC., )) Case No. 2:13-cv-0185
)Plaintiff, )
) Judge Marbley
v. ))
BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Magistrate Judge King
)
Defendant. )____________________________________________ )
DEFENDANT BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL, INC.S MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Defendant Bradshaw International, Inc.
(Bradshaw) brings the present motion against Kimber Cakeware, LLC (Kimber) for
Kimbers failure to withdraw its Complaint against Bradshaw. Kimbers Complaint lacks
legitimate legal and factual foundation. Kimber has asserted that Bradshaw infringes its design
patent, but has produced no evidence that supports its assertion of infringement. Moreover,
Kimber has asserted, and still maintains, a claim construction that ignores clear Federal Circuit
precedent. Kimber has wrongly asserted protection for a functional, utilitarian article through its
designpatent, which is the epitome of what cannotbe claimed in a design patent.
Bradshaw brings the instant motion as a last resort, having made repeated attempts to
resolve this matter without resorting to filing a Rule 11 motion. Bradshaw has repeatedly sought
an explanation from Kimber as to whyKimber believes its patent is being infringed. The only
explanation that Kimber has every provided in response has been by its ipse dixitparaphrase of
the test for infringement underEgyptian Goddess, that the ordinary observer would be confused.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 21 PAGEID #: 179
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
2/166
26243892.1
The only evidence Kimber has ever offered to support its conclusory assertion is that a single
retailer, upon inquiry by Kimber, stated that it was already selling Bradshaws product.
However, this fact actually demonstrates that the retailer lacked any confusion between the two
products, easily identifying the source. Consequently, the onlyevidence Kimber has in support
of its claim in fact rebuts Kimbers allegation of confusion.
Lacking any basis in fact or law, Kimbers true motives for bringing the instant suit can
be discerned: to shake down Bradshaw for a quick buck, regardless of the merits of its claims
or the law of design patents. Kimber has demanded a settlement amount far less than the costs
Bradshaw would need to defend the current litigation. The Federal Rules are designed to protect
defendants from this type of spurious allegation. The Court, upon full review of the facts and law
of this case, should reach the same conclusion Bradshaw hasthat Kimbers Complaint lacks
legitimate basis, Kimbers Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, and Kimber and its
attorneys be appropriately sanctioned under Rule 11.
I. Background
Kimber filed the instant action on March 1, 2013, alleging that Bradshaw infringed a
single design patent, U.S. Patent No. D671,376 (the 376 Patent). The 376 Patent claims the
ornamental design for a batter separator, as depicted in four drawings of the 376 Patent. The
underlying utilitarian article of the claimed ornamental design, a batter separator, is designed to
fit inside a standard-sized muffin tin cup, to permit two different types of batters to be used in
creating a single muffin or cupcake (e.g., a half-vanilla, half-chocolate cupcake). The claimed
ornamental design for a batter separator is shown in Figure 1 of the 376 Patent, the front view,
while Figure 2 depicts a nearly identical rear view. Figures 3 and 4 depict the side view and
top view of the batter separator. Both Figures 3 and 4 are essentially drawings of rectangles.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 21 PAGEID #: 180
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
3/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
4/166
46243892.1
Bradshaw Accused Product
Kimbers Complaint sought relief inter aliaa preliminary injunction for the irreparable
harm Kimber was facing due to Bradshaws alleged infringement. [D.I. 1.] However, Kimber
has made no motion for a preliminary injunction, and does not appear to be making any attempt
to seek one. Instead, Kimber has demanded payment from Bradshaw for an amount of money
that falls way below the amount that Bradshaw would be required to expend to defend the
present litigation. In fact, after Kimber had been provided financial data from Bradshaw as part
of the settlement negotiations, which demonstrated that the possible value of the alleged
infringement was even less than Kimbers settlement demand, Kimber served broad, unfocused,
and burdensome discovery on Bradshaw in an apparent attempt to force Bradshaw to settle.
II. Legal Standard
A. The Law of Design Patents
Although design patents share features of the much more common utility patentsuch as
patentability requirements under Title 35, examination before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Officedesign patents are permitted to protect only the ornamental or non-functional aspects of
an article of manufacture. See Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233,
1238 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 21 PAGEID #: 182
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
5/166
56243892.1
A design patent protects the "non-functional aspects of an
ornamental design as shown in a patent." Keystone Retaining Wall
Systems v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citingLee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188-89 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). A design may consist of "surface ornamentation,
configuration, or a combination of both." 1 Donald S. Chisum,Patents, 1.04 (1995). Because a design patent is by its nature
limited to ornamentation, design patents "cannot include claims tothe structural or functional aspects of the article[.]" Lee, 838 F.2d
at 1188. Indeed, if a design patented article is primarily functional,
the design patent is invalid. Avia Group International, Inc. v. L.A.
Gear California, 853 F.2d 1557, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Arner v. Sharper Image Corp., No. 94-1713, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21156, at *31 (C.D. Cal.
Oct. 5, 1995).
The drawings of the design patent define the scope of the claim. The first step in an
analysis of design patent infringement is to determine the scope of the claim. Determining
whether a design patent claim has been infringed requires, first, as with utility patents, that the
claim be properly construed to determine its meaning and scope.Elmer v. ICC Fabricating,
Inc.,57 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995). When construing the claim of a design patent, it is
important to consider that [a] patented design is defined by the drawings in the patent, not just
by one feature of the claimed design. Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc.,997
F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Design patents have almost no scope. The claim . . . in all
design cases, is limited to what is shown in the application drawing.In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581,
1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
[W]e have made clear that a design patent, unlike a utility patent, limits protection to the
ornamental design of the article. If the patented design is primarily functional rather than
ornamental, the patent is invalid. However, when the design also contains ornamental aspects, it
is entitled to a design patent whose scope is limited to those aspects alone and does not extend to
any functional elements of the claimed article.David A. Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 of 21 PAGEID #: 183
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
6/166
66243892.1
F.3d 1288, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted). The design of a useful article is
deemed functional where the appearance of the claimed design is dictated by' the use or
purpose of the article.Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Company, 304 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2002). (internal citation omitted). In other words, where the design of the article (or portion
thereof) is dictated by the function of the article, the design (or portion thereof) is functional. See
Avia Group International, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1563 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
When functional elements are present in a claimed design, these functional elements must
be verbally identified. Where a design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the
scope of the claim must be construedin order to identify the non-functional aspects of the
design as shown in the patent. OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoted inEgyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680) (emphasis added). The Court is
required to construe the 376 Patent to ensure the ornamental features of the design are sorted
from the functional features.
After the claim of the design patent is construed, the accused design is compared against
the patent in application of the ordinary observer test. The test originates from the Supreme
Court finding that
if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as apurchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if
the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing
him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first onepatented is infringed by the other.
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). The ordinary observer is generally the principal
purchaser of the article. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Hercules Tire & Rubber Co.,
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 6 of 21 PAGEID #: 184
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
7/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
8/166
86243892.1
contentions have evidentiary support or, . . . will likely have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for furtherinvestigation or discovery." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)-(3). As the
1993 advisory committee note explains, this rule "requires litigants
to 'stop-and-think' before initially making legal or factual
contentions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 advisory committee note to 1993amendments. The notes explain that the changes to the rule
"emphasize[] the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to potentialsanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable."
Raylon v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d 1361, 1366-1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In other
words, Rule 11 requires litigants to not only have a legitimate basis, in both fact and law, for
asserting a claim, but are required to withdraw its claim should their position shown to be no
longer tenable.
The Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit in reviewing Rule 11 sanctions.
Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Under Sixth Circuit
precedent, attorneys are required to follow an objective standard for asserting claims: The test
for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is whether the individual attorney's conduct was
reasonable under the circumstances.Mann v. G & G Mfg., Inc., 900 F.2d 953, 958 (6th Cir.
1990). The court elaborated that Plaintiffs counsel cannot insulate itself from Rule 11 sanctions
merely by showing that they acted in good faith, but instead must maintain a level of conduct
that meet[s] an objective standard of reasonableness under the circumstances. Id.Where a
litigants case is untenable, making conclusory allegations without factual support, and cannot be
sustained as a matter of law, Rule 11 is violated and sanctions against the litigant are warranted.
See Trans Rail Am., Inc. v. Hubbard Twp., No. 4:08-02790, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139113, at
*10-11 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2012) (citingMann v. G & G Mfg.);Meier v. Green, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 65766, No. 07-11410, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2007) (citingMann v. G & G
Mfg.).
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 8 of 21 PAGEID #: 186
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
9/166
96243892.1
As demonstrated below, Kimber lacked any legitimate basis to assert infringement
against Bradshaw. Kimber has continued to assert its infringement claim against Bradshaw
despite lack of evidence, clear guidance from the Federal Circuit that refutes its contentions, and
an unambiguous demonstration by Bradshaw of these deficiencies.
III. Kimbers Allegations
In Kimbers Complaint, Kimber accused Bradshaws batter separator as infringing
Kimbers 376 Patent. Kimber alleged, without any factual support or analysis that [t]he design
of Bradshaws batter separator as marked and sold would cause an ordinary observer, familiar
with the prior art designs, to be deceived into believing that the design of Bradshaws batter
separator is the same as Kimbers patented design. [D.I. 1 31.] In essence, this is an
incomplete paraphrase from the holding inEgyptian Goddess. Kimber ignores the functionality
of its patented design, ignores any consideration of the prior art, and provides no explanation as
to whythe ordinary observer would conclude that the accused Bradshaw product infringes the
376 Patent.
Accordingly, Bradshaw served an interrogatory on Kimber to provide all facts in support
of its assertion of infringement. In response, Kimber again provides an incomplete and wholly
deficient analysis on design patent claim construction and its infringement contentions, then
concludes: Applying theEgyptian Goddessstandard to the Kimber matter and observing the
designs below, it is Kimbers position that an ordinary observer would conclude that the accused
products are similar enough to create market confusion. Ex. 1, Kimbers Answers to
Bradshaws First Set of Interrogatories, No. 16. The drawings below are reproduced here:
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 9 of 21 PAGEID #: 187
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
10/166
106243892.1
The onlyevidence that Kimber cites in support of its conclusory market confusion theory is
merely repeating the same allegation made in the Complaintthat a customer of Bradshaws
refused to carry Kimbers product because it was already carrying Bradshaws product. [D.I. 1
27.] In fact, as evidenced by the email chain annexed to Kimbers Complaint, the customer was
able to precisely identify the proper source of the batter separator from Bradshaw, including a
link to Bradshaws Good Cook website. [Id.Ex. D.] Moreover, this single uncorroborated
hearsay statement fails to support the requirement that it must be the ornamentalfeatures that
create the confusion and makes no such distinction over the functional features. See OddzOn
Prods, 122 F.3d at 1406-07 (finding that where both functional and ornamental features are in a
patent design, survey evidence must demonstrate a link between the accused products and the
patented ornamental aspects of the design). Neither at the time of filing, nor more than nine
months into the litigation, has Kimber produced any scrap of evidence to support its assertion of
infringement.
At no point has Kimber acknowledged that its patented design is primarily functional,
which is not afforded design patent protection. Moreover, Kimber has also failed to acknowledge
that the established prior art of record completely abrogates any attempt by Kimber to stretch its
patent to accuse Bradshaw. These continued failures by Kimber to establish a basis in fact or law
to sustain this action are sanctionable under Rule 11.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 10 of 21 PAGEID #: 188
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
11/166
116243892.1
IV. Kimbers Assertion of Bradshaws Infringement is Unsupported by the Law
and Bradshaw Does Not Infringe the 376 Patent as a Matter of Law
A. Kimbers Proposed Claim Construction Ignores Functional Elements, WhichAre Not Afforded Protection Under A Design Patent
Kimbers only attempt to provide any analysis on the scope of the 376 Patent was
provided through its Settlement Demand Letter of November 27, 2013.1(Ex. 2 at 4.) Kimbers
analysis on the construction of the 376 Patent is improper and contrary to the precedent
established in inEgyptian Goddess,543 F.3d 665. Kimber makes the conclusory assertion that
the Court will construe Kimbers claim as an unambiguous and clearly illustrated design for a
cupcake batter separator. (Id.) But at no point does Kimber address that the bulk of the 376
Patent claims functional elements that are not protectable under design patent law.
Functional elements have never been protectable under design patent law. In order to
prevent a design patentee from asserting utility patent protection through a design patent,
functional elements must be identified in the claim construction of the design patent. Where a
design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be
construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design as shown in the patent.
OddzOn Prods., 122 F.3d at 1405 (quoted inEgyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680).
Kimbers letter and analysis completely ignores that the claimed batter separator has a
primarily utilitarian function of bisecting a cupcake/muffin cup. The claimed batter separator
1Although Kimbers settlement demand letter (and subsequently Bradshaws responsive letter)
are inadmissible for the purpose of establishing liability, the settlement letters demonstrateKimbers bad faith in asserting a position contrary to clear law, and thus admissible under Fed.
R. Evid. 408(b). See, e.g., Seafarers Int'l Union of N. Am. v. Thomas, 42 F. Supp. 2d 547 (3d Cir.
1999) (holding bad faith conduct during negotiations admissible);Ausherman v. Bank of Am.
Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D. Md. 2002) (Fed. R. Evid. 408 does not shelter [attorneys] who
attempt to shield from the Courts scrutiny deliberately untruthful statements.) However, any
statement concerning Bradshaws settlement offers remain inadmissible to prove liability underFed. R. Evid. 408(a).
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 11 of 21 PAGEID #: 189
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
12/166
126243892.1
shows in Figure 1 the front view while Figure 2 depicts a nearly identical rear view. These
two views together generally depict an upper top part of the separator, while the bottom
trapezoid conforms to the diameter of a standard size cupcake pan. (See 376 Patent, Ex. 3.) The
bottom cup-shaped part is depicted in the red box below:
The bottom part of the claimed design is unquestionably functional. The bottom part must
conform to the inverted, truncated cone shape of a muffin/cupcake cup. Any other shape would
not permit the batter poured into one half of the muffin cup to be separated from the other half of
the muffin cup. The bottom half must be trapezoid-shaped in the depicted proportion to properly
bisect the inverted, truncated cone shape of a muffin cup.
Figures 3 and 4 depict the side view and top view of the batter separator. Both figures are
essentially drawings of rectangles.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 12 of 21 PAGEID #: 190
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
13/166
136243892.1
Unsurprisingly, Kimber has never provided an analysis on the construction of its 376 patent
utilizing Figures 3 and 4 as part of its analysis. This is a tacit admission that Kimber has no
protectable interest in their design being essentially flat. This is supported by the similar analysis
from above on the functionality of the claimed batter separator. A batter separator must be flat
and thin (as claimed) in order to bisect the inverted, truncated cone shape of a muffin cup. Any
other pattern or shape other than flat would interfere with the ability to create two halves of
a single cupcake. Any other arbitrary shape would fail to create a cupcake with two halves, and
thus is a functional element of the claimed batter separator.
There are other clear indicia of the functionality of the claimed batter separator.Berry
Sterling Corp. v. Prescor Plastics, Inc., 122 F.3d 1452, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997) outlines additional
considerations, which are also present here:
Whether the protected design represents the best design. The trapezoid shape of thebottom part and the flatness of the claimed batter separate are the best design choices.Any other shape of these features would be poor choices in creating a batter divider that
evenly divided a muffin cup.
Whether alternative designs would adversely affect the utility of the specifiedarticle.A shape other than the trapezoid shape of the bottom part in the claimed
dimensions would not prevent batter being poured into one half of the muffin cup from
leaking into the other side of the muffin cup. A batter divider that was not flat and thin
would not permit the creation of muffins/cupcakes with two halves.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 13 of 21 PAGEID #: 191
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
14/166
146243892.1
Whether the advertising touts particular features of the design as having specificutility. Kimbers advertising touts its functional features. Right beneath the product nameon Kimbers packaging is the utilitarian feature of the claimed batter separatorthat it
fits standard size cupcake pans and cups:
(SeeEx. 2 at 1, Kimber Settlement Demand Letter of November 27, 2013.)
Kimber cannot ignore the functionality of its claimed batter separator during claim
construction. The Federal Circuit has already ruled it is improper to rely on just the
unambiguous and clearly illustrated design shown in the drawings where functional elements
must be considered. See Richardson, 597 F.3d at 1294. ([Patentee] fails to explain how a court
could effectively construe design claims, where necessary, in a way other than by describing the
features shown in the drawings. [Patentees] proposition that the claim construction should
comprise nothing more than the drawings is simply another way of arguing that the court erred
by identifying the functional elements of the patented article, and is therefore unavailing. We
find no error in the courts claim construction.). Moreover, if a design contains both functional
and ornamental features, the patentee must show that the perceived similarity is based on the
ornamental features of the design.OddzOn Prods., 122 F.3d at 1405. As such, there is an
additional level of proof required from the patentee, and it cannot merely rely on the drawings
alone to construe the patent.2
2Bradshaw maintains there are additional functional features of the claimed batter separator,
including at least the overhang on the top of the cupcake design that allow the product to rest
on the cupcake/muffin cup or paper cup, and the raised bumps for gripping the separator.
However, Bradshaw does not believe it is necessary to proceed with further analysis on thesepoints at this time.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 14 of 21 PAGEID #: 192
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
15/166
156243892.1
Kimbers proposed claim construction of the 376 patent is not merely a difference of
litigation positions, but an untenable position contrary to well-established law on design patents.
B. Kimbers Infringement Analysis Ignores Consideration Of The Prior Art AsRequired UnderEgyptian Goddess
In addition to Kimbers omission of clear precedent that prevents Kimber from claiming
design patent protection for the functionality of the claimed design, Kimbers cursory
infringement analysis relies on an improper selective reading of the operative case law. Kimber
omits key precedent fromEgyptian Goddessthat requires Kimber to consider the prior art in its
infringement analysis:
When the differences between the claimed and accused design
are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention of the
hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of
the claimed design that differ from the prior art. And when theclaimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences
between the accused design and the claimed design are likely to be
important to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer.
Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 675 (emphasis added). In other words, it must be the differences
between the claimed design and the prior art that cause the deception by the ordinary observer of
the similarities between the claimed design and the accused product. Comparison of the claimed
design against the prior art demonstrates exactly what feature the ordinary observer would be
drawn to in comparison with the accused product:
Fig. 1, 376 Patent Cupcake Cookie Cutter
Dated Oct. 25, 2009 (Ex. 4)
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 15 of 21 PAGEID #: 193
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
16/166
166243892.1
The only articulable difference between the claimed design and the prior art cookie cutter
is the addition of the seven circles under the bell portion of top of the claimed design. Every
other feature of the claimed design is present in this single prior art reference. Comparing the
differences between the claimed and accused design viewed in light of the prior art (and
accounting for the functional elements of the claimed design) indisputably demonstrate how
distinct the Accused Product is from the claimed design:
Fig. 1, 376 Patent Cupcake Cookie Cutter Accused Product
Again, the ordinary observer would be drawn towards the distinctive seven circles under
the bell portion of top of the claimed design, which are not present in the Accused Product. Any
attempt to construe the 376 Patent more broadly to encompass the Accused Product will render
the patent invalid as anticipated, as all of the ornamental features would be encompassed by the
Cupcake Cooke Cutter prior art reference. See Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412
F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (A century-old axiom of patent law holds that a product
which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier.)
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 16 of 21 PAGEID #: 194
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
17/166
176243892.1
This same analysis can be performed with any number of prior art references that the
ordinary observer would be familiar with:
D671,376 D359,153 (Ex. 5.) D601,379 (Ex. 6.)
D633,654 (Ex. 7.) D616,260 (Ex. 8.) D649,905 (Ex. 9.)
D610,944 (Ex. 10.) D590,524 (Ex. 11.) Accused Product
Bradshaw can find no plausible argument whereby Kimber can assert infringement of the
376 Patent without simultaneously distinguishing over the prior art.3
Even without the above analysis, the lack of any good faith claim of infringement can be
found in Kimbers Complaint. Kimbers repeated use of a three-way comparison between the
patent design, the accused product, and Kimbers product demonstrate how different Bradshaws
product is:
3Alternatively and additionally, the 376 Patent is invalid as anticipated by the Cupcake Cookie
Cutter prior art reference. All of the ornamental features of the two designs are the same, and theaddition of the functional gripping circles under the bell portion of the top of the design fails to
make a patentable distinction over the prior art. However, a full analysis is not necessary at this
time and Bradshaw reserves the right to revisit the invalidity of the 376 Patent later, ifwarranted.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 17 of 21 PAGEID #: 195
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
18/166
186243892.1
The ordinary observer can easily distinguish which one of these three images is not like the
others. Nobodywould confuse the Bradshaw product in the middle as the same as the other two
pictures, let alone an ordinary observer. Not only does Bradshaw not infringe the 376 Patent,
there is no plausible argument for Kimber to assert that Bradshaw is infringing the 376 Patent.
V. Kimbers Filing and Maintaining of the Present Lawsuit Without a Basis in Fact or
Law Warrant Rule 11 Sanctions
As Kimber continues insisting on advancing its baseless claim of infringement against
Bradshaw, Kimber is subject to liability for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Under
Sixth Circuit precedent, the test for the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is the objective standard
of whether the individual's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. Union Planters
Bank v. L & J Dev. Co., 115 F.3d 378, 384 (6th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). This objective
standard is violated when the patentee takes unsustainable positions during litigation. For
example, the Federal Circuit held that there is a threshold below which a claim construction is
so unreasonable that no reasonable litigant could believe it would succeed, and thus warrants
Rule 11 sanctions.Raylon v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc., 700 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2012)(quoting iLor, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
As demonstrated above, Kimbers positions on claim construction and infringement are
so unreasonable that no reasonable litigant would believe it could maintain these contentions.
Kimber cannot ignore established precedent on the functionality of its claimed design or the prior
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 18 of 21 PAGEID #: 196
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
19/166
196243892.1
art that limits the scope of its design. Kimber cannot profess ignorance of the law, which also
provides no support for Kimbers assertion of infringement. As the Sixth Circuit measures
conduct against an objective standard, Kimber cannot insulate itself from failing to comply with
Rule 11 merely because it may have had a good faith belief in pursuing the present lawsuit.
Thus, Rule 11 sanctions are warranted against Kimber as it has maintained its accusation of
infringement against Bradshaw.
Even more egregious is that Kimber has had full knowledge of the facts and legal
statements contained herein since December 9, 2013, as Kimber was provided with Bradshaws
response to its settlement demand letter. (Ex. 12.) The Sixth Circuit has admonished parties that
Rule 11s requirement of reasonableness is not a one-time obligation and parties are
impressed with a continuing responsibility to review and reevaluate his pleadings and where
appropriate modify them to conform to Rule 11."Runfola & Associates, Inc. v. Spectrum
Reporting II, Inc., 88 F.3d 368, 374 (6th Cir. 1996).
In this case, Kimbers allegations and legal positions were not reasonable at Kimbers
initiation of the present lawsuit, and the continued discovery and correspondence exchanged
further demonstrate the lack of reasonableness. Where much of the factual record is publicly
available at the time of the complaint, Plaintiff must make a sound appraisal of the viability of
[its] claims.Bates v. Colony Park Ass'n, 393 F. Supp. 2d 578, 598 (E.D. Mich. 2005). Any
doubt Kimber had that it was attempting to protect non-ornamental features already present in
the prior art through its asserted design patent should have long been erased.
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 19 of 21 PAGEID #: 197
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
20/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
21/166
216243892.1
/s/ Michael B. Marion
Michael B. Marion (admittedpro hac vice)Robert J. Kenney (admittedpro hac vice)
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East
Falls Church, Virginia 22042Phone: (703) 205-8000
Fax: (703) 205-8050
rjk@bskb.com;
mbm@bskb.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 8, 2014 and February 5, 2014, I served via electronic
mail, a copy of the foregoingDefendant Bradshaw International, Inc.s Memorandum in Support
of its Rule 11Motion for Sanctionsupon:
Samuel N. Lillard, Esq.
Courtney J. Miller, Esq.David M. Marcus, Esq.
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
Fifth Third Center21 East State Street, Suite 1700
Columbus, OH 43215
slillard@mwncmh.com
cmiller@mwncmh.com
dmarcus@mwncmh.com
/s/ Michael B. Marion
Michael B. Marion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 21 of 21 PAGEID #: 199
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
22/166
EXHIBIT 1
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 23 PAGEID #: 200
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
23/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 23 PAGEID #: 201
fN TRE UN ITED STA TES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRI CT OF OHIOEASTERN DIVISION
KJmber Cakeware, LLC Case No. 2: 13-cv-0185PlaintiiT. Judge Marbleyvs. Magistrate Judge KingBradshaw l nte rnHtional, ln c.Defendant
PLAINTIFF KJMBE R CAKEWARE, LL SANS WERS TO DEFENDANTBRADSHAW JNTERNATIONAL , INC. S FIRST SET OF I NTE RROGATORIESNow comes the Plaintiff, Kimber Cakewarc, LLC (hereinafter Plainti rr or ''Kimber ),
through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureand nereby subm its its responses to De fendant Btadshaw International, Tnc. s (hereinafterDefendant or Bradshaw ) First Sel of Interrogatories under oath and in writing.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTThe responses se t fo rth be low arc made so lely for the purpose of this action. By
responding to Defendants First Set of Intcrrogatol'ics, Plaintiff hereby states that it does no twaive its right to make all appropriate objection s including without limitation, objectionsconcerning relevancy. competency, material ity. propriety and admissibi1ity, that would requirethe exclusion of any statement contained herein or in any document referenced iJ any suchresponse or document were so ught to be introduced into evidence at any hea ring or trial in thisaction. Plaintiff expressly reserves al l such objections.
Plaintiff has not ye t completed its investigation of all the facts relating to this action andhas no1 yet completed its preparation fo r trial. he following responses are based upon
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
24/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 23 PAGEID #: 202
information and documents presently known to responding party and are therefore made withoutprejudice to responding party's right to produce sub sequently discovered evidence relaUng to theproof of presently known material fac ts and to produce all evidence, whenever di scovered, in anyrotm, relating to tbe proof of subsequently discovered material fac ts.
Except for ex pl icit facts admitted herein, or in any documents referenced in connectionhc 'ewith, no admission or any narwe is intended, and none should be implied or inferred.Plaintiff genera lly objects to each discovery request to U e ex tent that it seeks informationprotected by the attorney-client and/or attorney wo rk product ptivileges, including withoutlimitalion, protected communications between responding party and its cow1sel and counsel'slega l reasoning, theories opiruons, research, impressions and/or conclusions. Without waivingany objections, qualifications and limitations, Plaintiff respond s as fo llows:INTF RROGATOR O 1:
Identify each Accused Product in this action, set forth each element of the patent-in-suitthat Kimber alleges has been infringed as a result of the sale of the product; whether suchinfringement is direct or under the doctrine of equivalents; set forth , on an e lement-by-elementbasis, the corresponding structure in each product which Kimber alleges satisties each respectivecJaim element or feature; and identify eacl1 document refen ing or relating to any analysis orevaluation performed on any sample of an Accused Product.ANS\VER
Wi hrespect to fn terrogatory No. I, Kin1ber states that the Accused Product jn this actions Defendant s "Sweet Creations by Good Cook cupcake divider'' batter separator. Kimber
further states that taking its non-obvious ornamental design for a batter separator marketed as''Batter Babies ("patented design") and comparing it to Ue Accused Product, an ordinary
2
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
25/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 23 PAGEID #: 203
observer would believe that the patented design and Accused Product are substantially the samein appearance as illustrated below:
Kimber's Patented Design Bradshaw Batter Separator
Further, pursuant to Egyptian Goddess v Swisa, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. C ir 2008), inconstruing design patents, courts are to genera lly forego ve rbal or narrative descriptions ofdesign patents: ''Given the recognized di fficulties entailed n trying to describe a design inwords, the preferable course ordjnarily wiJI be for a disnict court not to attempt to ' construe' adesign patent claim by providing a detailed verbal description of the c laimed design.' ' [d at 679.[D]csign patents 'typically are claimed as shown in drawings.' and claim construction 'is adapted
accordingly. ' d '[A]s a rule the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description. 'ld Accordingly, courts have generally re lied on parent draw ings to construe design claims.Wing Shing Products Co. Ltd. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., 665 F.Supp.2d 357, 360 (S.D.N.Y.2009). Thus, Defendant's request for an element-by-clement comparison of the Accused Productand patented design is a Futile exe rcise that does not comport with the present state of therelevant law.
3
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
26/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 of 23 PAGEID #: 204
FinaUy wi th respect to Defendant s request that Kimber idemify ench document referringor elating to any analysis or evaluation performed on any sample of an Accused Product,Kimber specifically identifies U.S. Design Patent No. D671,376.INTERROGATORY NO 2:
Identify all prior art to lhe patent-in-suit, including the identification of all patentability.validity, prior art, e11forceability or infringement evaluations, searches, or opinions conducted byor lor Kimber (or any of the named inventors of the patent-i n-suit) relating to the allegedinventions described and claimed in the patent-in-suit, including for each such evaluaUon, searchor op inion, the iden tification of the date and scope of each such evaluation, search or opinjon; theidentification of each person involved in authorizing, conducting, evaluating or reviewing theresu lts of each such evaluation, search or opinion; and n identification of all documents,including in patents and other publications which were revealed by each such evaluation, searchor opi nion; and all other documents relating to each such evaluation, search, or opinion,including but not limited to any such reports.ANSWER
With respect to Interrogatory No. 2, Kimber states that it is not aware of any pdor rtrelated to he patent-in-sllit.
INTERUOGATORY NO 3:Tdentify each disclosure related to the subject matter for the patent-in-suit made prior to
the Jiling of a patent application, by any individual, including the inventors of the p t e n t i n s u i tto any thit d party, nd identify each person(s) involved in and who received such disclosUI e.
4
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
27/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 6 of 23 PAGEID #: 205
ANSWER:With respect to Interrogatory No. 3, Kimber states lhat it made no disclosures related to
the subject matter for the patent-in-suit to any third-party prior to the filing of the relevant patentapplication.INTERROGATORY NO 4:
Identify each communication between Kimber and any other person or companyconcerning the initial availability, offer of sale. or proposal or request to provide productsembodying any alleged invention of U1e patent-in-suit prior to fi ling the corresponding patentapplication directed to the claimed product.ANSWER:
Kimber engaged in conversations with lhe following companies concerning themanufacture, distribution, and/or marketing of its patented design prior to filing thecorresponding patent application:
Midwest Molding Inc. (Plain Ci ty, OH) PPA Graphics (Canal Winchester, OI I) TCG Continuum (Columbus, OH) Dive Creative (Columbus, OH Thomas Tool Mold Co mpany (Westerville, OI-l Priority Designs (Gahanna, OH)
INTERROG TORY NO 5:With respect to the patent-in-suit. identify each imber Product manufactured and/or
distributed by or on behalfof Kimber at any time by product name, number ot sim ilar manner ofidenti fication; state the date he product was first introduced to the market; set forth the total
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
28/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 7 of 23 PAGEID #: 206
sales volume in the United States in units and assoc iated dollar revenue on an annual basis fromthe date of introduction; identify the person or persons most knowledgeable with respect to eacho the relevant feaLurcs of the product; and identily the person or persons most knowledgeableconcerning lbe facts and c ircumstances related to the original introduction of the product to themarket by or on beha lf of Kimber (including the original customer to whom the product was tirstoffered).ANSWER
With respect to lnt nogatory No 5 Kimber states that it offered its Oatter Daddy'' and''Batter Babies' product lines for sale in the consumer market beginning in December 20 I0.Kimber further states that Robert Reiser, original Member and current President of Kimber. isthe person most knowledgeable with respect to the relevant features of the patented design andthe facts and circum stances related to the miginal introduction of the Bauer Babies to tbe market.Conce rning Defendant's request for sales and revenue infonnation related to the Patented designgiven the sensi tivity and proprietary nature of the information requested, Kimber stales tl1at itwill produce such information upon the cxccuLion of a mutually agreeable protected order, adrafl of which has previously been provided to Bradshaw for review and consideration.INTERROGATORY NO 6:
State the date that Kimber first became awa re or each Accused Produ ct in this action, setforth the circumstances under which Kimber became aware of the product. identi fy each personhaving know ledge of the ci rcumstances surrounding Kimber' s initial awareness of the AccusedProduct(s); and identify each document referring or relating to Kimber's awareness of theAccused Product and of its fe turesAN WER
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
29/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 8 of 23 PAGEID #: 207
Kimber fi rst became aware of the Accused Product in thi s action on or about October 22,2012 when Ki mb erly Reiser ( Mrs Reiser), Vice President and Mernber ofKimber, received anemail [rom Ki m Teresi ( Ms Teresi ), Se nior Buye r and Director of Ad vertis ing at a co mpanycalled Chef Ce ntraL Mrs Reiser had reached out to Ms. Teresi to explore whether Chef Cenualwou ld be interested in can ying Batter Babies fo r sale. Ms. Teresi, apparently evidencingco nfusion as to the source of Bradshaw's baller separator, responded that Chef Central wasalready carrying this product through Bradshaw/Good Cook. Mrs Reiser respond ed to inquire
how long Bradshaw had been selling its batter separator, to whi ch Ms Teresi respond ed thatBradshaws batter separator had been introduced at th e Intern ational Housewares Show in Marchof2012 On or abour October 22, 2012, Ms Reiser info rm ed Mr. Reiser about the above emailco tTespondence from Ms Teresi and forwarded hi m the relevant chain of emails A true andaccurate copy of the email chain be tween Mrs . Reiser and Ms Teresi is attached to Plaint ifPsCo mpla int as Exhibi t D
In addition, Mr. Reiser attended a housewares show in 20 13 and witnessed a salespresentation y unknown representatives and /or agents of Bradsha w who explained howBradshaw supposedly invented the Accused Product.INTERRO G TO RY NO
Identify each occun ence on whi ch an Accused Product was evaluated by or on behalf ofKimber, and identifY each docum ent referring or relating to any testing, measurement, an al ysisor observations related to the product and identify each person invo lved in the evaluation.
NSWER
7
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
30/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 9 of 23 PAGEID #: 208
Wit h respect to lntetrogatory No. 7, Kimber states that on or about October 22. 201 2,Robert Reiser observed the Accused Product on the Bradshaw/Good Cook website and visuallycompared the Accu sed Product to the patented design. Mr. Reiser also viewed the AccusedProduct in-person at a housewares show in 2013. In addition, the Accused Product wasevaluated and visua lly compared to the patented design by Kimbers past legal counsel, RonaldKoch, and present legal counsel, Courtney Miller. To the extent that the foregoing request seeksinform ation and documentation protec ted by the illto rney-client privilege and/or work productdoctrine, Kimber exercises its protected right to withhold such information from production.JNTERROGATORY NO :
Identify any agreements relating to or invo lving the patent-in-suit including ownershipintctests , non-disclosure agreements, development ag reements, assignment agreements, fltndingagreements. license agreements including p01tfolio licenses), settlement agreements. andconsent agreements not to enforce the patent-in-suit, and identi fy the person mo st knowledgeableregarding the identified agreements.ANSWER:
A written assignm ent of rights wus execuLe by Robert Re1ser to Kimber involving thepaten ted design. As a result, Kimber is the owner by assignment of a right, tille and interest inU.S. Design Patent No. D67 I .376 . In further response to Defendant s request. Mr Reiser is theperson mo st knowledgeable about U1e relevant wri tten assignment.lNTEIU{OGATOilV NO 9:
Jden tily each of Kimbers empl oyees, former employees, consultants or agents (otherthan clerical or similar non-technical support staff) who were involved, on behalf of lUmber, nthe prosecution of and application for the pa tent-in-suit and any foreign counterparts thereof and
8
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
31/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 10 of 23 PAGEID #: 209
the duties and responsibilities of each in connection witb the prosecution of and application forthe patent-in-suit.NSW R:
Robert Reiser, original Member and current President of Kimber, created the in itialdesign for the patented design, sought the application for U1e patent-in-suit, obtained the patent-in-suit assigned his rights to the patent-insuil to Kimber and observed the infii.ngement of thepatent-in-suit by Defendant.i T RROGATORY NO 10:
Identify each person that Ki.mbcr may call as a witness to testify at any proceeding in thi smauer. state the genera l subject matter to which the witness testimony is expected to re late and ,for any identified expert witness: st te the occupation of each expe1t , identify the field ofexperlise of each expert; provide a resume of qualifications of each expert; state each opinionwhkh the t xpelt may offer on behalf of Kimber; set fmth the complete basis underlying eachrespective opinion; and identify all documents and things supporting or otherwise referring orrelating to each such opinion.NSW R:
Kimber states that it has not yet identified an expert witness it may call to testify at anyproceeding in this matter. Should Kimber identify an expert witness in the future, it willseasonably supplement the foregoing response in accordance with the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure. As to lay witnesses, Kimber has not determined who it may call to testify in thismatter; however Kimber has prepared a preliminary list of witnesses be low. Kimber reserves lheright to seasonably supplement this response.
1 RobertS. Reiser, President and Member3333 Scioto f rms Dr.9
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
32/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
33/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 12 of 23 PAGEID #: 211
Mr. Giessman has knowledge concerning the history of Kimber and the effects ofDefendant s infringing activ ities on Kimber s business.
5. Mcrrilee M. Martin, Member6157 Joliff StreetGalloway, Ohio 43119(6 14) 361-8677Ms. Martin has knowledge co ncernmg the history of Kimber and the effects ofDefenda11t s infringing ac tivi ties on Kimbers business.
6. Keri Anderson, employee of DefendantRancho Cucamonga, California 9 1730(800) 421-6290Ms. Anderson has knowledge concerning the DeHmdant s purchase of products fromKimber based on the design protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D671 ,376. theintentional copying by Defendant ofKimber s design. and the awareness of Defendant ofthe patent-pending status of the design upon which Kimber s products are based.
7. Kim Teresi, Senior Buyer and Director ofAdvertising at ChefCentraJ240 Route 17North Paramus, NJ 07652(20 I 576-0178 ex t. 12Ms. Teresi has knowledge concerning lual onfusion between the design set forth inU.S. Des ign Patent No. 0671.376 and the Defendants infringing prod uct.
8. Jeff MegorclenExecutive Vice President at Bradshaw9409 Buffalo AvenueRancho Cucamonga, California 91730(800) 421-6290It is anticipated lhat Mr. Megorden wi ll testify about the facts and circumstances relatedto Derendant s infringemenl on U.S. Design Palent No. 0671.376.
9. Thomns Barber
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
34/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 13 of 23 PAGEID #: 212
9409 Buffalo AvenueRancho Cucamonga, California 91730(800) 421-6290t is anticipated that Mr. Barber will testiry about the facts m1d circumstances related to
Defendant s infringement on U.S. Design Patent No. D671 ,376.0. Any witness identified by Defendant or called to testify by Defendant in this matter.
INTERROGATORY NO 11:Identify and describe al l documents retention and do cument destruction policies o
Kimber that has been applicable or in force at any time since 2000, including any such policyconcerning information or documents stored in computer memory.ANSWER:
Kimber has no formal destruction or retention poUcy for company documents.INTERROG TORY NO 12:
Separately for each o Bradshaws interrogatories and document requests, identify eachperson who was consulted or who provided information or documents in connection with thepreparation o your answers thereto.ANSWER
Kimber states that Robert Reiser provided Kimbers responses to the foregoinginterrogatories and requests for documents with the assistance o counsel.INTERROGATORY NO 13:
State all facts that suppo11 your allegations made in paragraphs 12 1.4 o Kimber sComp laint.
2
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
35/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 14 of 23 PAGEID #: 213
ANSWERKimber states that prior to the formation of Kimber, Robert Reiser designed and began
marketing a full -sized cake ba tter separator called the 'Batter Dadd y. n 2009, while the designpatent was pending on the Batter Dadd y Mr. Reiser sought to partner with approximately twodozen companies for the manufac ture and distribution of the Batter Daddy. he specificcompanies that Mr. Reiser can recall communicating wi th related to partnering on the BatterDaddy included:
Wi Lon Co rp .
Brads haw/Good Cook Rubbermaid Zak Ca lphalon CHEFS arberware KitchenAid NordicWare llutzler Nopro Oneida Anchor Hocking fox Run I3rands Progressive Inti.
3
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
36/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 15 of 23 PAGEID #: 214
Nearly all the commutlication occurred via unsolicited co ld calls or unsolicited written letters tothe particular company and Mr. Reiser does not remember e specific names of any individualshe communi cated with. Mr. Reiser does specifically recall that the representative he spoke withfrom Bradshaw rejected partnering with him on the Batter Daddy for the stated reason thatdifficulties in lhe economy had caused Bradshaw to stop developing any new products for aperiod of lime. ThereaHer, Mr Reiser sought professional device and conducted marketresearch, and determining that there was a market for the Batter Daddy, began to prepare anJmanufacture and market the Batter Daddy on his own.INTERROGATORY NO 14:
State all facts that support your cJaims of infringement under 35 USC 271 (b), (c). and(f).ANSWER
In 201 1, Kimbers President and founder, Robert S. Reiser, applied for a design patentfrom the U S Patent Office for the Batter Babies design. On November 27, 2012, Kimber'spatent was approved and designated as U.S. Design Patent No. D67l,376. Mr Reisersubsequently assigned the patent to Kimber. Since bringing its Batter Babies line of products tothe market, Kimber has experienced growing success and received praise in the industry.
Defendant Bradshaw International, Inc. ( Bradshaw'') is a Delaware corporation with itsprincipal place of business in Rancho Cucamonga, California. ll also sells baking products,including a line of products under the name Sweet Creations by Good Cook.
4
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
37/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 16 of 23 PAGEID #: 215
On Friday, December 16, 20 , Bradshaw's Senior Product Manager, Keri Anderson( Ms. Anderson ), ordered a set of Batter Babies from Kimber. Kimber subsequently completedthe order request and shipped the package of Batter Babies to Ms. Anderson at Bradshaw'sfacil ities. The package sent to Ms. Anderson was clearly labeled with the notification PatentPending. Approximately I0 months later, Kimber became aware at Bradshaw was selling acompeting product to its Batter Babies with a design that was substantially the same in violationof its design patent:
Kimber's Patented Design Bradshaw Batter Separator
Bradshaw's competing product design was so similar that Kimber began to encountermarket confusion when marketing its Batler Babies product. Specifically, when Kimber inquiredas to whether Chef Central, a company that sells cookware, bakeware and other assortedaccessories, would be interested in carry ing Batter Babies fo r s le, a Chef Central representativeresponded that Chef was already carrying Kimber' s product through Bradshaw/Good Cook.Because Bradshaw has applied a colorable imitation of Kimber's patented design to its productfor the purpose of s le , it is n clear violation of 35 U.S.C. 289 which prohibits design patentinfringement.
5
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
38/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 17 of 23 PAGEID #: 216
INTERROGATORY NO 15:
State all facts that demonstrate the iiTeparable harm that Kimber is facing through thealleged infringement of the patent-in-suit by Bradshaw.ANSWER
With respect to tertogatory No. 15, Kimber states that as a result of Defend antsongoing in fringement of the patent-in-suit, Kimb er has been unable to supply its Patented designto bak.eware retailers, suppliers and di stributors al ready carrying the Accused Product, resultingin significant lost revenues and profits to Kimber. Defendant s sale of the Accused Product hascaused market confusion and likely led ordinary purchasers to buy the Accused Productbe liev ing it to be Kimber s patented design. s a result, Kimber's market share for its patenteddesign has been negatively impacted and it has lost potential revenue and profits.INTERROGATORY N0 16:
State all facts that support yo tu allegation that '[t]he design of Bradshaw's battersepa rator as marked ind sold would c ause an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior rtdesigns, to be deceived into believing that the design of Bradshaw's batter separator is the sameas Kimber's patented design.ANSWER
Pursuan t to the Cowt's decision in the Egyptian Goddess case, in determining whctheadesign patent is infringed requires the fact-tinder lo compare the patented and accused designsto determine whether the accused design is substantially similar in appearance to the patenteddesign. b1 making this determination, courts utilize the 'ordinary observe r' test: [l]f, in the eyeor an orclinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usual ly gives, two designs aresubstantia.ly the sam e, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to
16
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
39/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
40/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 19 of 23 PAGEID #: 218
INTERROGATORY NO 17:State whether Kimber has ever purchased a product that competes with a Kimber prodllct,
and if so, for each such purchase, identif which competitor s products was purchased, the dateof purchase, the associated Kimber product, the Kimber employee that purchased thecompetitor s product, and the purpose fo r the purchase of the competitor s product.ANSWER:
In 2012, Kimber s r e s i d e n t ~ Robert Reiser, purchased the Accused Product in order tocompare it to its patented design and to determine whether Defendant infringed upon the patentin suj t ln 2013, Kimber s President, Robert Reiser, purchased a Wi lton Two-Tone Cupcake PanSet, to compare the quality of Wilton s product to Kjmber s products.INTERROGATORY 18:
For each Accused Product, identify, by either narratjve or by drawing, the location of thefollowing features on the Accused Product, labeled A through [ below:
ANSWER:
8
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
41/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 20 of 23 PAGEID #: 219
With respect to Interrogatory No. 18, as previously stated, under the '1ordinary observertest: [T]f in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives,two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer,inducing him to purchase one supposing .t to be the ot her, the first one patented is infringed bythe other. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670 quoting Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528(1871)); see lso L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 11 24 ( Design paten t infringement requires a showingthat the accused design is su bstantia lly the same as the claimed design. The criterion is deceptionof the ordinary observer, such that one design would be confused with the other. ); Crocs. Inc. v.Internat ional Trade Comm n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed. Cir 20 10) (infringement isdemonsbated where an ordinary observer ... would be dece ived into believing that the accusedproduct is the same as the patented design ) citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 681. Thus, thet elevant inqu iry in this matter is whether the Accused Product is substantially similar inappearance to Kimber s patented design such that it would deceive an ordinary observer. Asdepicted below, an ordinary observer would be confused by Kimbers patented des ign whencompared to Defendant s Accused Product:
Kimbers Patented Design Bradshaw Batter Separator
9
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
42/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 21 of 23 PAGEID #: 220
The analysis requested by Defendant in the foregoing i11terrogatory has been rejected bythe Court in Egyptian Goddess and by numerous other Co urts, including in Gorham v. White, 81U.S. 14 (1871); Crocs. Jnc. v. International Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010);Victor Stanley. lnc. v. Creative Pipe, lnc . 2011 U.S. Di st. LEXIS 112846 (D.Md. September 30.20 II); Apple. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 U.S. Di st. LEXJS I05125, 32-33 (N.D. Cal. July27 2 12)
Respectfully Submitted,
n IN. d ( 0 ~ 0 5 7 1 (Trial Allomey)ourtney J. Miller( 070450)David M. Marcus ( 0087144)McNees Wallace Nurick LLC21 East State Street, 17' FloorColwnbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: (6 14) 469-8000Fax: (614) 469-4653slillard@mwncrnh.comcmiller@mwncmh.comdmarcus@mwncmh.comAllorneysfor Kimber Cakeware LLC
20
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
43/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-1 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 22 of 23 PAGEID #: 221
CERTIFIC TE OF SERVI EI hereby cet1ify that a copy o the foregoing Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Set
o Interrogatories was served upon the below-listed counsel via regular U.S Mail and e-mail onk ~ y o December, 20 13:
Phillip G EckenrodeHAHN LOESER PARKS, LLP65 East State Street, Suite 1400Co lumbus, Ohio 43215peckenrode@hahnlaw.comR. Eric GaumHAHN LOESER PARKS, LLP200 Public Square, Suite 2800Cleveland, Ohio 441 l4regaum@hahlaw.comOF COUNSEL:Robert J KenneyBIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH BIRCH, LLP8 0 Gatehouse Road, Suite IOOEFalls Church, Virginia 22042rjk@bskb commailroom@bskb.comMichael B MarionBIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH BIRCH, LLP8110 Gatehousc Road, Suite lOOEFa lls Church, Virginia 22042rnbm@bskb.commailroom@bskb.co rnA'Yl'ORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTBRADSHAW TNTERNATTONAL, TNC .
21
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
44/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
45/166
EXHIBIT 3
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-2 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 223
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
46/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-2 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 224
c12) United States Design PatentReiser
54) BATTER SEPARATOR76) Inventor: Robert S. Reiser, Hilliard, OH US)**) Term: 14 Years21) Appl. No.: 29/388,83722) Filed: Apr. 1, 201151) LOC 9) Cl. .................................................. 07-0452) U.S. Cl. ........................................................ D7/66958) Field of Classification Search ................... D7/669,D7/368, 409; 126/373.1; 426/523; 425/289;220/533; 249/117, 171,203, 128-132, DIG. 1;
99/422, 426, DIG. 15See applicati on file for complete search history.56) References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS2,081,078 A 5/1937 Watson 126/373.12,327,988 A 8/1943 Bassett ......................... 249/1314,040,539 A 8/1977 Patterson ...................... 220/5265,074,777 A 12/1991 Garner .......................... 425/289
USOOD6713 76S
10) Patent No.: US D671,376 SNov. 27, 201245) Date of Patent:
5,446,965 A6,287,619 B1D593,363 S7,654,195 B28,197,116 B2* cited by examiner
9/1995 Makridi s ........... ............. . 30/3159/2001 Khan ............................ 426/5236/2009 Collinson ...................... D7 409212010 Morito eta . ................ 99/450.76/2012 Klein ............................ 220/533
Primary Examiner Terry Wallace74) Attorney Agent or i rm Ronald J Koch57) CL IM
The ornamental design for a batter separator, as shown anddescribed.DESCRIPTION
FIG. depicts a front view.FIG. 2 depicts a rear view.FIG. 3 depicts a side view with the front facing leftward; and,FIG. 4 depicts a top view wit h the front facing downward.n essentially planar body member having a distinctive out-line.
1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
47/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
48/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-2 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 226
U.S. atent Nov. 27 2012 Shee t 2 o 4 US D671 376 S
F.I G 2 ... ..
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
49/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-2 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 227
U.S. atent Nov. 27 2012 Shee t 3 o 4 US D671 376 S
FI.G:, 3 , : .. ... : ...
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
50/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-2 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 228
U.S. atent Nov. 27, 2012 Shee t 4 of 4 US D671,376 S
.. .......................................................... :::r::=:::=w:r. .y:i
F.. I a. 4. .. . :: :. .. . :
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
51/166
EXHIBIT 4
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-3 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 229
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
52/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
53/166
olate Moulds - Inspired By Chocolate
web.archive.org/.../20091025223149/http:/inspiredbychocolate.com.au/?articleID=showProducts&view=detail&categoryID=56&Product_ID=2340&sub_category=97[12/4/2013 12:2
2009 Inspired By Chocolate All Rights Reserved
BRADSHAW000008
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-3 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 231
http://web.archive.org/web/20091025223149/http://www.ravenculture.com/8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
54/166
/inspiredbychocolate.com.au/product_images/CCF0005/DSC01527.JPG[12/4/2013 12:25:41 PM]
BRADSHAW000009
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-3 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 232
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
55/166
EXHIBIT 5
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-4 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 233
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
56/166BRADSHAW000025
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-4 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 234
United States Patent [191Viggiano[54] MUFFIN TOP[76] Inventor: Bernard J. Viggiano, 4494 DeerRidge Rd., Danville, Calif. 94541[**] Term: 14 Years[21] Appl. No.: 27,611[22] Filed: Aug. 25, 1994[52] U.S. Cl ..................................................... D1/102[58] Field of Search ................ D1/102, 104, 125, 128,D1 130, 199; 426/91, 104[56 References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTSD. 194,577 2/1963 Herman ........................... Dl/104 X1,593,858 7/1926 Venable ........................... Dl/102 X4,139,644 2/1979 Stephenson ..................... Dl/102 X
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS638064 2/1928 France .................................. Dl/102
' '' y'..','\
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111USOOD359153S[11] Patent Number: Des. 359,153[45] Date of Patent: ** Jun. 13, 1995
OTHER PUBLICATIONSJoy of Cooking", 1975. P. 630. Muffins on top left ofpage.
Primary Examiner A. Hugo WordAssistant Examiner Pamela BurgessAttorney Agent or Firm-Michael A. Glenn[57] CLAIMThe ornamental design for a muffin top, as shown anddescribed.
DESCRIPTIONFIG. 1 is a front elevational view of a muffin top show-ing my new design;FIG. 2 is a left side elevational view thereof;FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view thereof;FIG. 4 is a rear elevational view thereof;FIG. 5 is a right side elevational view thereof;FIG. 6 is a top plan view thereof; and,FIG. 7 is a front perspective view thereof.
:
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
57/166BRADSHAW000026
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-4 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 235
U.S. Patent
. : . .-..:;
VJj.
une 13 1995
:-c.lt'.:\
{
/I
Sheet 1 of 3 Des. 359 153
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
58/166BRADSHAW000027
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-4 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 236
U.S. Patent June 13, 1995 Sheet 2 of 3 Des. 359 153
:::: VJj
.... ._ ; - : --. : : : : : : - : : ~ : : . : : - _ : : _ . ; : _ : _ : : ~ - - : : : = ~ ; : : : : : : : : : : : : ~ ~ : : : : : : . - - ::.: .;. - ~ : : : ~ - : _ , , . _ . , , : :
.,,, : : : : : : : : : _ : : . : _ ; : . : : ~ ~ : : ~ ~ \ ; : : ; ; : : ; . ; . ; : . ~ : : ; ; : : : - ; : : - ; : : . : ( { ~ : / ; ~ : - < ~ ~ } ) . : . : \ ~ \ ~ / ) r , ~ ; ~ f { ; ; : : : _ { : : ; . ; _ ~ : ~ - : ) . / : y - ?
.--.
_.-_:.:::. ::.. .:._
::{ :::\_ _:--
::
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
59/166BRADSHAW000028
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-4 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 237
U.S. Patent une 13 1995
.l... :
Sheet 3 of 3 Des. 359 153
VJ i
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
60/166
EXHIBIT 6
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-5 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 238
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
61/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-5 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 239
I
(12) United States Design PatentDeLeo
(54) CUPCAKE HOLDER(75) Inventor: Anthony M. De Leo, Comstock Park,
MI (US)(73) Assignee: Dart Industries Inc., Orlando, FL (US)(**) Term: 14 Years(21) Appl. No.: 29/312,606(22) Filed: Nov. 3, 2008(51) LOC 9) Cl .................................................. 07-02(52) U.S. Cl. ....................................................... D7/354(58) Field ofClassification Search .......... Dl/101-105,
(56)
Dl/116-118, 122; D7/323, 354-361,400,D7/402, 511,515,523,531,554.1-554.2,D7/565-566, 628, 667; D9/428-429, 617,D9/643; D23/367; D25/7; 220/671-673;4261115See application file for complete search history.References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS2.588.957 A 3/1952 BrownD174,352 S 3/1955 SchaefD200,806 s 4/1965 Pava3,292,840 A 12/1966 SchmidtD229.924 S 111974 Brown .. ........ ...... ...... .. .. D25/74,273,249 A 6/1981 FlorianD287,336 S 12/1986 Roehrig4,795,033 A 111989 DuffyD322,402 s 12/1991 Budzbanowski ............. D9/428D398,135 s 9/1998 BiniaJis ....................... Dl/101D404,535 S 111999 Biniaris ....................... Dl/1015,858,428 A 111999 Truscello eta . . ........... 426/115
USOOD601379S
(IO) Patent No.: US D601,379 SOct. 6, 200945) Date of Patent:
D420,440 SD442,834 SD478,785 S6,896.140 B1D506,351 SD521.872 SD540.663 S2004/0251162 A1
2 2000 El-Assir .................... D23/3675 200 1 Perez .......................... D7 /6288/2003 Rorke et al.5/2005 Perry6/2005 Scholze et a . ............... D7 /3605/2006 Wu ............................. D9/6434/2007 Tanner12/2004 McGinnis et al.
OTHER PUBLICATIONSCup-A-Cake LLC; Cup-A-Cake cupcake container; 2008 (twopages taken from www.cupacake.com w ebsite).
cited by examinerPrimary E x a m i n e r ~ Joel Sincavagessistant x a m i n e r ~ R i c k Y Pham
(74) Attorney, Agent, or F i r m ~ J o l m A . Doninger(57) CLAIMThe ornamental design for a cupcake holder, as shown anddescribed.
DESCRIPTIONFIG. 1 is a top, side and front perspective view o a cupcakeholder showing my new design;FIG. 2 is a front elevation view thereof;FIG. 3 is a rear elevation view thereof;FIG. 4 is a right side elevation view thereof;FIG. 5 is a left side elevation view thereof;FIG. is a top plan view thereof;FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view thereof; and,FIG. 8 is a bottom, side and rear perspective view thereof.
1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
62/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-5 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 240
U.S. atent Oct 6 2009 Sheet 1 of 5 US D601 379 S
1 /f /1
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
63/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-5 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 241
U.S. atent Oct 6 2009 Sheet 2 of 5 US D601 379 S
~
~
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
64/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-5 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 242
U.S. atent Oct 6 2009 Sheet 3 of 5 US D601 379 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
65/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-5 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 243
U.S. atent Oct 6 2009 Sheet 4 of 5 US D601 379 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
66/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-5 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 244
U.S. Patent Oct 6 2009 Sheet 5 of 5US D601 379 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
67/166
EXHIBIT 7
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-6 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 245
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
68/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-6 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 246
I
(12) United States Design PatentBerkete
(54) CUPCAKE-SHAPED CONTAINER FORHOLDING LIP-GLOSS OR THE LIKE
(76) Inventor: Carole Berkete, North Hollywood, CA(US)(**) Term: 14 Years(21) Appl. No.: 29/355,039(22) Filed: Feb.2 2010(51) LOC 9) Cl. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28-03(52) U.S. Cl. ........................... D28/79; D28/87; D9/643(58) Field of Classification Search .................. D28/76,D28/79, 82, 8 5 ~ 9 ; 132/286, 2 9 3 ~ 3 7 ; D9/643;Dl/101, 118, 124, 129; D7/354; 206/581,206/823See application file for complete search history.(56) References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTSD242,297 S 1111976 Ortega ......................... Dl/101D276,087 S 10/1984 Kotyuk, Jr. .................. D28/79D398,135 S 9/1998 Biniaris ....................... Dl/101D404,535 S 111999 Biniaris ....................... Dl/101D440,016 S 4/2001 ThmpeD472,019 S 3/2003 Mmata ........................ D28/91D480,269 S 10/2003 CurrierD536,137 S 1/2007 Gill ............................. D28/79D586,175 S 212 9 FrankD594,285 S 612 9 MereyD600.496 S 9/2009 FernandesD601,379 S 10/2009 DeLeoD604J17 S 1112009 Braidotti ...................... D9/6442002/0159820 AI 10/2002 Louis et al .................. 4011129
OTHER PUBLICATIONSWIPO Intellectual Property Digital Library, Jar for cosmetic products, Registration No. DM/048388, Int'l Registration date Jul. 7,
USOOD633654S
(10) Patent No.:(45) Date of Patent: US D633,654 SMar. 1, 2011
1999, Biotherm Societe Anonyme Monegasque, Le Neptune ,Avenue Prince Hereditaire Albert, MC-98-000, Monaco, 2 pages.The Cupcakes Club, Website: www.thecupcakesclub.com/blog/commtmity/cupcakes-for-your-lipsgiveaway. First found on the internetJan. 10, 2010 4:02pm PST, 2 pages.
cited by examinerPrimary Examiner-Jennifer Rivard(74) Attorney Agent or Firm George P White(57) CLAIMThe ornamental design for a cupcake-shaped container, forholding lip-gloss or the like, substantially as shown anddescribed.
DESCRIPTIONFIG. is an exploded, perspective view showing my newdesign for a lip-gloss container with a cap portion removedfrom a base portion;FIG. 2 is a perspective view thereof;FIG. 3 is a specific side elevational view thereof;FIG. 4 is a side elevational view thereof, with the containerturned 90-degrees clockwise from the position ofFIG. 3;FIG. 5 is a side elevation view of the side opposite to that ofFIG. 4 thereof;FIG. 6 is a side elevation view of the side opposite to that ofFIG. 3 thereof;FIG. 7 is a top plan view thereof; and,FIG. 8 is a bottom view thereof.The three oblique, parallel diagonal shade lines used on thebase represent the base's translucent appearance and the circular regions of the cap represent the appearance of rhinestones.
1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
69/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-6 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 247
U.S. atent Mar 1 2011 Sheet 1 of 4 US D633 654 S
Fig
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
70/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-6 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 248
U.S. Patent Mar. 1 2011 Sheet 2 of 4 US D633 654 S
Fig
Fig 4
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
71/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-6 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 249
U.S. Patent Mar. 1 2011 Sheet 3 of 4 US D633 654 S
Fig
Fig 6
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
72/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-6 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 250
U.S. atent Mar. 1 2011 Sheet 4 of 4 US D633 654 S
Fig
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
73/166
EXHIBIT 8
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-7 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 251
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
74/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
75/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-7 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 253
U.S. atent May 25 2010 Sheet 1 of 2 US D616 260 S
I I Il _jL
Fig l Fig. 2
Fig 3
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
76/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-7 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 254
U.S. atent May 25 2010 Sheet 2 of2 US D616 260 S
Fig.
Fig. 6
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
77/166
EXHIBIT 9
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-8 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 255
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
78/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-8 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 256
I
c12) United States Design PatentGulbinski
54) NOVELTY CONTAINER75) Inventor: Eva Gulbinski, Mississauga CA)73) Assignee: Giftcraft Ltd., Brampton CA)**) Term: 14 Years21) Appl. No.: 29/350,40122) Filed: Nov.16 200930) Foreign Application Priority Data
Jul. 22, 2009 CA) ........................................ 13150951) LOC 9) Cl . .................................................. 11-0252) U.S. Cl . ...................................................... Dll/15758) Field ofClassification Search ................. Dll/157,Dll/158, 131, 133, 134; D28/76, 79, 8,D28/85-90; 132/286, 293-307; D9/643;Dl/101, 118, 124, 129; D7/354; 206/581,206/823See application file for complete search history.56) References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTSD279,280 S * 6/1985 Resnick ....................... Dll/146D398,135 S * 9/1998 Biniaris ......................... Dl/101D404,535 S * 111999 Biniaris ....... . . Dl/101D467,362 S * 12/2002 Gue ................................. D26 7
USOOD649905S
IO) Patent No.:45) Date of Patent: US D649,905 SDec. 6, 2011
D510,960 s * 10/2005 Choi ............. D211402D521,872 s * 5/2006 Wu .... ...... D9/643D527,520 s * 9/2006 Green ............ D3/271.1D590,524 s * 412009 Gue ................. D2617D594,285 s * 612009 Merey. ...... D7/610D601,379 s * 10/2009 DeLeo D7/354*604,117 s 11/2009 Braidotti .................. D7/628D610,864 s * 3/2010 WhitcombeD616,260 s * 5/2010 Facey eta .D633,654 s * 3/2011 Berkete ....*cited by examiner
Primary Examiner Holly Baynhamssistant Examiner Michelle E Wilson
... D7/352D7/675D28/79
74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm -Birch Stewart, KolaschBirch, LLP57) CLAIMThe ornamental design for a novelty container, as shown anddescribed.
DESCRIPTIONFIG. is a top perspective view of the novelty container;FIG. 2 is a front view thereof;FIG. 3 is a back view thereof;FIG. 4 is a side view thereof;FIG. 5 is an opposing side view thereof;FIG. 6 is a top view thereof;FIG. 7 is a bottom view thereof; and,FIG. 8 is a front perspective view thereof.
1 Claim, 5 Drawing Sheets
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
79/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-8 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 257
U.S. Patent Dec. 6 2011 Sheet of 5 US D649 905 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
80/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-8 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 o
FIG 2 FIG 3
. ..
------ .-=--'
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
81/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-8 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 o
II
I
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
82/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-8 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 6 o
FIG 6 FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
83/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-8 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 261
U.S. Patent Dec. 6 2011 Sheet of US D649 905 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
84/166
EXHIBIT 10
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-9 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 262
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
85/166
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
86/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-9 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 264
U.S. Patent Mar 2 2010 Sheet 1of 6US D610 944 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
87/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-9 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 265
U.S. Patent Mar.2 2010 Sheet 2 of 6 US D610 944 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
88/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-9 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 266
U.S. Patent Mar 2 2010 Sheet 3 of 6 US D610 944 SFIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
89/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-9 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 267
U.S. Patent Mar. 2 2010 Sheet 4 of 6 US D610 944 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
90/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-9 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 268
U.S. Patent Mar 2 2010 Sheet 5 of US D610 944 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
91/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-9 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 269
U.S. Patent Mar. 2 2010 Sheet 6 of 6 US D610 944 S
FIG
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
92/166
EXHIBIT 11
to Defendant Bradshaw's
Rule 11Motion
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-10 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 270
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
93/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-10 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 271
12) United States Design PatentGue
54) ICE-CREAM CANDLE76) Inventor: Jimmy J Gue, P.O. Box 30536, Seattle,
WA US) 98113**) Term: 14 Years21) Appl. No.: 29/271 93022) Filed: Jan.30 200751) LOC 9) Cl. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... . 26-0452) U.S. Cl. ......................................................... D26/758) Field of Classification Search .............. D 2 6 6 ~ 2 3 ;
56)
431/288, 125, 126,292, 289; Dll/131, 131.1,Dll/157, 81See application file for complete search history.References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTSD231,135 S 4/1974 Marcum ....... ...... ....... ... D26 7D246.509 S 1111977 Hytken ........................ D9/643D268,059 S 2/1983 Kracke ...... ...... ....... ...... D34/4D279,280 S 6/1985 Resnick ...... ....... ....... . Dl1 146D395,230 S 6/1998 Slater ...... ...... ....... ...... . D9/643D431,306 S 9/2000 Tsai ............................. D26/5D467,362 S 12/2002 Gue ....... ...... ...... ....... ... D26 7D508,217 S 8/2005 Graves et aL ................ Dll 81
USOOD590524S
IO) Patent No.:45) Date of Patent: US D590,524 SApr.14 2009
D510,960 S 10/2005 Choi ....... ....... ....... .... D21/402D527,520 S 9/2006 Green ....... ........ ....... D3/271.1
* cited by examinerPrimary xaminer T. Chase NelsonAssistant Examiner Ania K Dworzecka57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for an ice-cream candle, as shown anddescribed.DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a front elevational view of a ice-cream candle show-ing my new design;FIG. 2 is a rear elevational view;FIG. 3 is a top plan view;FIG. 4 is a bottom plan view;FIG. 5 is a right side elevational view; and,FIG. 6 is a left side elevational view.The drawings are lined on the candle for color and on the wickfor the surface of he wick respectively. The portions ofFIG.4 shown in broken lines form no part of the claimed design.
1 Claim, 2 Drawing Sheets
0
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
94/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-10 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 272
U.S. atent Apr 14 2009 Sheet 1 of2 US D590 524 S
FIG FIG. 2
FIG. 3 FIG. 4
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
95/166
Case: 2:13-cv-00185-ALM-NMK Doc #: 24-10 Filed: 02/05/14 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 273
U.S. Patent Apr 14 2009 Sheet 2 of 2 US D590 524 S
FIG. 5 FIG. 6
8/12/2019 Kimber v. Bradshaw - Sanctions Briefing
96/166
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
S