When considering complaint information, please take into account the company’s size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm’s responses to them are often more important than the hyper bicycles number of complaints. “CatEye is the leading manufacturer of cycle computers, lights and reflectors to cyclists in the world. Founded in 1954 in Osaka, Japan, CatEye has always been a leader in innovation and technology.”
The Federal Circuit has instructed that a design patent’s claim is often better represented by illustrations than a written claim construction. Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679 ). Consequently, the preferable course hyper bike for a district court ordinarily will be not to attempt to “construe” a design patent by providing a detailed verbal description of the claimed design. Defendant rejoins that a verbal construction of claims explicitly excluding functional elements, as it has proposed, is more appropriate.
To commemorate this golden year, Vittoria introduces the limited-edition Corsa PRO Gold adorned with golden sidewalls. Only 2,023 packs will be available worldwide, each containing two Corsa PRO Gold tires. “SMALL DETAILS. BIG DIFFERENCE. With this concept hyper mountain bike came the genesis of Avid, which you can still see in every product we make. Since 1991, Avid has been working hard to bring you the industry’s most dramatic improvements and make enhancements so sweet it’s hard to imagine riding without them.”
The question in this case, therefore, is primarily the “level of detail” to be used in describing the claimed design, i.e. whether the Court should advert to the illustrations in the design patent or undertake an element-by-element description thereof. Resting on Reddy and DePaoli, plaintiff requests that the Court reject defendant’s proposed construction and reserve any issues of functionality for a later time. Lu brings suit for two counts of patent infringement of United States patents numbers US D529,842 S (“the ’842 patent”) and US D556,642 S (“the ’642 patent”), each of which relates to the ornamental design of a bicycle. Plaintiff seeks judgment that Hyper Bicycles has infringed the two patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, damages to compensate plaintiff for the infringement, trebled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 due to the willfulness of the alleged infringement and attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. “Park Tool has been manufacturing bicycle specific tools since 1963. Based out of St. Paul Minnesota, we are the world’s largest bicycle tool manufacturer. A long-term dedication to quality, innovation, and customer service has made Park Tool the first choice of professional and home bicycle mechanics around the world.” Feel the racing passion of the UCI Mountain Bike World Cups with the new Barzo and Mezcal UCI-licensed editions, the new tire options dedicated to all sports & leisure cross-country mountain bikers.
It observes that the Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess stated that it may be helpful for the court to point out various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the prior art. 543 F.3d at 680. It then cites Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, a case in which the Federal Circuit, reviewing the verbal construction of a design patent, approvingly concluded that the lower court had followed the Egyptian Goddess standard “to a tee”. Defendant submits that Lanard controls the present case, or at least provides more authoritative guidance than DePaoli and Reddy.
On October 20, 2021, the Court held a Markman hearing with respect to the claim construction to be applied to the design patents. The ‘842 and ’642 patents are both design patents which pertain to bicycles and, in particular, the ornamental design of two bicycles. The patents claim the design shown in their respective figures one through seven.