Arminak & Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc.

Good Law
424 F. Supp. 2d 1188·2006 WL 819740·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20168
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 20, 2006SACV 04-1455CJCAJWXCalifornia9,197 words

Opinion

Opinion

Carney, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF NONINFRINGEMENT

This patent infringement case concerns two design patents for a device known as a “trigger sprayer shroud:” a plastic cover that fits over the pump mechanism used in plastic spray bottles. (Opposition Brief, p. 1.) Defendant Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc. (“Calmar”) asserts that Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, Arminak and Associates (“Arminak”) infringed its United States Patents Nos. Des. 381,581 (the “ ’581 Patent”) and. Des. 377,602 (the “ ’602 Patent”) by selling a device known as the “AA Trigger.” Arminak now moves for partial summary judgment of Calmar’s design patent infringement claim, on the ground that no reasonable jury could find that the AA Trigger infringes the ’581 or ’602 Patents. Because the Court finds that Calmar has failed to present evidence that an ordinary observer would be deceived by the overall visual similarities between the patented designs and the accused device, Arminak’s motion is GRANTED.

I. Background

Arminak has sold and distributed packaging systems for the cleaning, household and cosmetic industries since 1999. (Helga…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.