Intex Recreation Corp. v. Hasbro, Inc.

ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication re:

(i) Invalidity of Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,575,738 ;

(ii) Invalidity of U.S. Design Patent No. D-366-085;

(iii) Non-Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D-366-085; and Plaintiffs Motion for Bifurcation

Plaintiffs Motions for Summary Adjudication re: (i) Invalidity of Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,575,738 ; (ii) Invalidity of U.S. Design Patent No. D-366-085; (iii) Non-Infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D-366-085; and Plaintiffs Motion for Bifurcation came on regularly for hearing before this Court on January 12, 1998. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, argument of counsel, and the-case file, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from D efendant-Counter-elaimant Hasbro’s allegations of patent infringement against Plain tiff-Counterdefen-dant Intex. Specifically, Hasbro has alleged that Intex’s “Jump-O-Lene” product — an inflatable, trampoline-like toy — infringes upon Hasbro’s design and utility Patents, which are embodied in Hasbro’s “Playschool Moon-bouncer” product — another inflatable,…