Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

1
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEWYORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
PRESTI 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 nt er 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 pat ent 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 oma 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
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
In re FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES : 08 Civ. 7831 (PAC)
LITIGATION : 09 MD 2013 (PAC)
:
: OPINION & ORDER
-----------------------------------------------------------x

HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:

BACKGROUND
1

The early years of this decade saw a boom in home financing which was fueled, among
other things, by low interest rates and lax credit conditions. New lending instruments, such as
subprime mortgages (high credit risk loans) and Alt-A mortgages (low-documentation loans)
kept the boom going. Borrowers played a role too; they took on unmanageable risks on the
assumption that the market would continue to rise and that refinancing options would always be
available in the future. Lending discipline was lacking in the system. Mortgage originators did
not hold these high-risk mortgage loans. Rather than carry the rising risk on their books, the
originators sold their loans into the secondary mortgage market, often as securitized packages
known as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). MBS markets grew almost exponentially.
But then the housing bubble burst. In 2006, the demand for housing dropped abruptly
and home prices began to fall. In light of the changing housing market, banks modified their
lending practices and became unwilling to refinance home mortgages without refinancing.

1
Unless otherwise indicated, all references cited as ( _) or to the Complaint are to the Amended Complaint,
dated June 22, 2009. For purposes of this Motion, all allegations in the Amended Complaint are taken as true.
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED:
Case 1:09-md-02013-PAC Document 57 Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 45
9/15/2014
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
LanhamAct vi ol at i ons. Now bot h si des move f or summar y
j udgment . For t he r easons set f or t h bel ow, Pr est i ge s mot i on
f or summar y 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 summar y j udgment
[ dkt . no. 91] on val i di t y i s GRANTED.

3

I . BACKGROUND
1

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

On J une 22, 2010, t he Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and Tr ademar k
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 ng
decl ar at i ons and t he exhi bi t s at t ached t her et o: Decl ar at i on of
J oseph A. Mar t i n, dat ed Oct . 1, 2012 [ dkt . no. 70] ( Mar t i n
Decl . ) ; 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 ed
Oct . 24, 2012 [ dkt . no. 84] ( Newman Decl . ) ; Decl ar at i on of Avi
Mat 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 of
J ef f r ey Cohen, dat ed Oct . 15, 2013 [ dkt . no. 100] ( Cohen
Decl . ) ; 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 Max
Moskowi t z, dat ed Oct . 23, 2013 [ dkt . no. 105] ( Thi r d Moskowi t z
Decl . ) . The Cour t al so consi der s t he par t i es st at ement s
pur suant t o Local Rul e 56. 1: Pl ai nt i f f s St at ement of Undi sput ed
Mat er i al Fact s, dat ed Oct . 1, 2012 [ dkt . no. 75] ( Pr est i ge s
56. 1 St at ement ) ; Def endant s Opposi t i on t o Pl ai nt i f f s
St at ement of Undi sput ed Fact s, dat ed Oct . 18, 2012 ( Def s. 56. 1
Count er - St at ement ) ( not f i l ed on ECF) ; Def endant s St at ement of
Undi 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 o
Def 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 ng
t 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. )
4

One of t he co- i nvent or s, Lok- Sung Rocky Wong, manages Wi ng Yee
as wel l as t wo si st er compani es, BK J ewel l er y 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 ct ur es, not wor ds. The cl ai mi 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 , compar at i vel y l ar ger
f ul l - cut di amond, sur r ounded by ni ne smal l er si ngl e- cut
di amonds t hat ar e cant ed r el at i ve t o t he 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
5

56. 1 Count er - St at ement 16. )
3
Ful l - cut di amonds have mor e
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 - St at ement 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 oma di st ance. ( See Wong Decl . 15; see al so
Pr est i ge s 56. 1 Count er - St at ement 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 Count er - St at ement 20. ) Ar r angement s of smal l er di amonds
gr ouped t oget her t o mi mi c a l ar ger di amond ar e 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 on
of t he pi ct ur es i n t he 132 Pat ent , t hey di sagr ee over t he
pr oper descr i pt i on of t he i mages f or t he pur pose of cl ai m
const r uct i on. As di scussed bel ow, t he Cour t decl i nes f or mal l y
t o t r ansl at e t he 132 Pat ent s cl ai mi nt o wor ds. ( See i nf r a
Par t I I . B. 1. )

4
Def endant s di sagr ee wi t h Pr est i ge on t he pr eci se meani ng of t he
t er mcl 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 monl y r ef er s t o ar r angement s of
di amonds t hat ar e [ m] or e or l ess t he same si ze. ( See
Moskowi 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 m
i 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 or
t he pur poses of t hi s memor andumand or der .

6

Amer i cas i n l at e 2008. ( Wong Decl . 23. )
5
As ear l y as Mar ch
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 eamj 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] mat ch 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 eamj 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 eamj 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 eamj 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 on
August 12, 2008 and subsequent l y appl i ed f or and was gr ant ed
pat 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 ed
St at es and Hong Kong) i ncl udi ng Canada, Aust r al i a, t he Peopl e s
Republ 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 l
cut . ( See Def s. 56. 1. 18; Pr est i ge s 56. 1 Count er - St at ement
18. )
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
si mi l ar j ewel r y. ( See i d. )
B. Pr est 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 , dat ed J une 21,
2011 [ dkt . no. 12] ( Am. Compl . ) 3; Answer t o Am. Compl .
[ dkt . no. 15] 3. ) Pr est 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 eamj ewel r y. ( See
Def s. 56. 1 St at ement 38. ) Pr est i ge acknowl edges t hat t he
( cont d)
8

Vaghani f or war ded 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 eamj 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 Pr est 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, Pr est 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 ompr ev. page)
j ewel r y and br ochur e wer e cr eat ed by BK J ewel l er y but does not
admi t t hat t hey showed t he Lady Dr eamdesi gn. ( Pr est i ge s 56. 1
Count er - St at ement 37- 38. )
9

and t he pat ent sear cher aski ng [ i ] s our s di f f er ent enough t hat
we can mar ket our i t em? Does t he st one count mat t er ? ( I d. )
Kot har i al so asked [ w] hy wer e we unabl e t o f i nd t hi 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 act or s i t i s a
cl ose cal l . ( I d. Ex. 35, at 2. ) Li t t al so st at 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 er ent 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 er ywas t he assi gnee of t he 132
Pat ent . Def endant s st at e, and Pr est i ge admi t s, t hat Pr est i ge
and i t s at t or neys wer e not awar e of Wi ng Yee i n 2010 and a
pr i or ar t sear ch pr i or t o [ J une 22, 2010] woul d not have f ound
t he 132 Pat ent . ( Def s. 56. 1 St at ement 66- 67; Pr est i ge s
Count er - St at ement 66- 67. )
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 pher al di amonds made up as much as ni net y per cent
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 connect i 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 Mar ch
2011, Pr est i ge f i l ed anot her pat ent appl i cat i on showi ng bot h
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 eambr 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 wer e not mat er 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 Pr est i ge s appl i cat i on whi ch i nvol ved a compl et e 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 Pr est 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 [ Pr est i ge s] cust omer s and at t empt ed
t o sel l t hema di amond head whi ch was descr i bed t o us
as 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 hat
our cl i ent has act i vel y mar ket ed i t s di amond head f or
a subst ant i al per i od of t i me. Mor eover , i t has a
pendi ng pat ent appl i cat i on r egar di ng i t s desi gn. The
cust omer cont act ed our cl i ent and i ndi cat ed i t was
conf used as t o t he sour ce and i dent i t y of t he di amond
head because of t he si mi l ar i t y bet ween t he t wo i t ems.
12

( Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 32. ) Pr est i ge appar ent l y was
unawar e t hat Mat at ov hel d a l i cense t o sel l Lady Dr eamj ewel r y
under t he 132 Pat ent . On Mar ch 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 Act i 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. Pr est 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 assi gned t o t he Honor abl e Leonar d B. Sand.
On J une 14, 2011 Def endant s f i l ed t hei r answer i n whi ch t hey
asser t ed count er cl ai ms f or pat ent i nf r i ngement and LanhamAct
vi ol at i ons agai nst Pr est i ge. ( See Answer [ dkt . no. 10] . )
Pr est i ge f i l ed an amended compl ai nt on J une 21, 2011 whi ch added
BK J ewel l er y 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 Pr est 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
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 der ed t hese t en
r ef er ences but det er mi ned t hat onl y f our of t hemr 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 wer e 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 er mi ned t hat t he Memoi r e r ef er ence ( See Second
Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 11) was not pr i or ar t . I t al so det er mi ned
t hat t he f ol l owi ng r ef er ences di d not r ai se a subst ant i al new
quest i on of pat ent abi l i t y: t he Whi t ehouse pat ent ( See Second
Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 3) ( t he st ones do not over l ap, t he si ze
di f f er ence of t he st ones i s l ess exagger at ed, t he bases of t he
st ones ar e on near l y t he same pl ane) , t he Suder ov pat ent ( See
Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 4) ( t he si ze di f f er ences of t he st ones
ar e l ess exagger at ed, t he bases of t he st ones ar e on near l y t he
same pl ane) , t he Gur f i nkel pat ent ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl .
Ex. 5) ( t he per i pher al st ones ar e not angl ed agai nst t he cent r al
st one) , t he Wi ng Yee r ef er ence ( 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)
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 nbaumpat 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 ompr ev. page)
t he i mages ar e of t oo poor qual i t y) , and t he Cohen pat ent
appl i cat i on ( See Second Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 7) ( t he per i pher al
st ones ar e not angl ed agai nst t he cent er st one, t he per i pher al
st ones do not embody a wel l - known di amond cut ) . ( See Second
Moskowi t z Decl . Ex. 14. ) The PTO al so det er mi ned t hat t he
f ol l owi ng r ef er ences di d not r ai se a subst ant i al quest i on of
pat ent abi l i t y by t hemsel ves: t he Bi r nbaumpat ent ( t he cent r al
st one and per i pher al st ones ar e near l y t he same si ze, t he
per i pher al st ones ar e not angl ed agai nst t he cent er st one) , t he
Fai 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 ar e t he same si ze, t he per i pher al st ones
ar 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 ar e near l y t he same
si ze, t he per i pher al st ones ar e not angl ed agai nst t he cent er
st 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 sur r ounded by
ei ght f ul l - cut per i pher al di amonds whi ch ar e angl ed agai nst t he
cent r al di amond. ( See Li n Pat ent . )
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 hat
t he si ngl e - cut st yl e pr e- dat es t he use of t he
f ul l - cut st yl e hi st or i cal l y. Fur t her , t he
di f f er ence i n over al l appear ance achi eved by usi ng
f ul l - cut st yl e per i pher al st ones i nst ead of si ngl e-
cut per i pher al st ones i s not consi der ed pat ent abl y
di 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 Mar ch 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 appear ances;
( 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
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 sur r ounded by a r i ng of di amonds wi t h a
DI FFERENT cut st yl e. As suppor t ed by t he Pat ent
Owner s decl ar at i ons, t he pr i or ar t shows t hat
per i pher al di amonds have t he SAME cut st yl e as t he
cent r al di amond.
( I d. at 10. ) The PTO f ur t her not ed t hat
[ t ] he Pat ent Owner at t est s t o t r emendous commer ci al
success of t he desi gn of t he 132 pat ent , and i n a way
t 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 pher al di amonds. Because sal es behavi or was
di r ect l y l i nked t o whet her t he per i pher al di amonds
wer e si ngl e- cut or f ul l - cut [ t hi s] per mi t s t he
ar 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
Pr est 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 andumof Law i n Suppor t of Pl ai nt i f f s
Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment as t o Al l Cl ai ms and Count er cl 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 Lanham
Act count er cl ai m. Pr est i ge cont ends t hat t he LanhamAct cl ai m
must be di smi ssed i f t he 132 Pat ent i s i nval i d or i f t her e has
been no i nf r i ngement . ( See Pr est i ge s Memo. , at 15- 16. )
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 summar y 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 omDef 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 , dat ed 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 summar y 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 summar y 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 mt 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 ar t . ( See Def endant s Memor andumof Law i n
Suppor t of t hei r Mot i on f or Summar y 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 or mal l y r eassi gned t o t he under si gned on August
20, 2013.
18

I I . DI SCUSSI ON
A. Legal St andar ds
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 summar y 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 summar y
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 t he nonmovi 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 nonmovi 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) .
Summar y j udgment i s appr opr i at e 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 r easonabl e j ur y coul d r et ur n a ver di ct f or t he nonmovi ng
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 t he 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 t hr 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 smof 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 pat ent concer ns 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 and
usef ul i mpr ovement t her eof . 35 U. S. C. 101
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 ot her wi se pr ovi ded. ) ; see al so I nt l Seaway
Tr adi ng Cor p v. Wal gr eens 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
or nament al r equi r ement of t he desi gn st at ut 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 or nament 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 seemas much
di ct at ed by f unct i onal consi der at i ons as i s t he
appear ance of a pi ece of r ope, whi ch, t oo, has r i bs
and gr ooves ni cel y ar r anged. The f act t hat i t i s
at t r act i ve or pl easant t o behol d i s not enough. Many
wel l - const r uct ed ar t i cl es of manuf act ur e whose
conf i gur at i ons ar e di ct at ed sol el y by f unct i on ar e
21

pl easi ng t o l ook upon, f or exampl e a hex- nut , a bal l
bear i ng, a gol f cl ub, or a f i shi ng r od, t he pl easur e
dependi ng l ar gel y on one s i nt er est s. But i t has l ong
been set t l ed t hat when a conf i gur at i on i s t he r esul t
of 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 or
t he si mpl e r eason t hat i t i s not or nament al was not
cr 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 pr ot 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. ThomMcAn 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
or nament 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 mof 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 mConst 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 LAWDI CTI ONARY 1238 ( 9t h
ed. 2009) . A cour t cannot det er mi ne whet her a pat ent i s val i d
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 mhas 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 mbe
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 mconst 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 wor ds. 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 mi 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 cer t ai n ci r cumst ances, a cour t t r ansl at i ng a desi gn
pat ent cl ai mi 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.
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 scr et 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 omt he Feder al Ci r cui t appear s t o be i n
t ensi on wi t h t he hol di ng of Egypt i an Goddess. I n Hi gh Poi nt
Desi gn LLC v. Buyer s Di r ect , I nc. , 730 F. 3d 1301, 1314 ( 2013) , a
t hr ee- j udge panel of t he Feder al Ci r cui t hel d t hat t he di st r i ct
cour 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 nst r uct i ons f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o add suf f i ci ent det ai l t o
i t s ver bal descr i pt i on of t he cl ai med desi gn t o evoke a vi sual
i mage consonant wi t h t he desi gn. I d. The t hr ee- j udge panel i n
Hi gh Poi nt di d not ci t e or di scuss t he en banc hol di ng of
Egypt i an Goddess. To t he ext ent t hese t wo cases ar e
i nconsi st ent wi t h each ot her , t he Cour t f ol l ows t he Feder al
Ci r cui t s en banc deci si on i n Egypt i an Goddess.
24

ef f ect i ve f i l i ng dat e of t he cl ai med i nvent i on. 35 U. S. C.
102( a) ( 1) . The t est f or ant i ci pat i on i s whet her an or di nar y
obser ver f ami l i ar wi t h t he pr i or ar t woul d be decei ved i nt o
bel i evi ng t hat t he desi gn i n quest i on was t he same as a pr i or
ar t r ef er ence. Egypt i an Goddess, 543 F. 3d at 681; see al so i d.
at 670 ( The [ Supr eme Cour t ] . . . set f or t h t he t est t hat has
been ci t ed i n many subsequent cases: [ i ] f , i n t he eye of an
or di nar y obser ver , gi vi ng such at t ent i on as a pur chaser usual l y
gi ves, t wo desi gns ar e subst ant i al l y t he same, i f t he
r esembl ance i s such as t o decei ve such an obser ver , i nduci ng hi m
t o pur chase one supposi ng i t t o be t he ot her . . . . ) ( quot i ng
Gor hamMf g. Co. v. Whi t e, 81 U. S. 511, 528 ( 1871) ) .
Ant i ci pat i on r equi r es t he pr esence i n a si ngl e pr i or ar t
di scl osur e of al l el ement s of a cl ai med i nvent i on ar r anged as i n
t he cl ai m. Connel l v. Sear s, Roebuck & Co. , 722 F. 2d 1542,
1548 ( Fed. Ci r . 1983) Pr i or ut i l i t y pat ent s may be consi der ed
pr i or ar t f or desi gn pat ent s. See I n r e J enni ngs, 182 F. 2d 207,
208 ( C. C. P. A. 1950) . Ant i ci pat i on i s a quest i on of f act .
E. g. , Sanof i - Synt hel abo v. Apot ex, I nc. , 550 F. 3d 1075, 1082
( Fed. Ci r . 2008) .
d. Obvi ousness
A desi gn al so cannot be pat ent ed i f t he di f f er ences
bet ween t he cl ai med i nvent i on and t he pr i or ar t ar e such t hat
25

t he cl ai med i nvent i on as a whol e woul d have been obvi ous bef or e
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 of
t he pr i or ar t ; ( 2) t he di f f er ence bet ween t he pr i or
ar t and t he cl ai med i nvent i on; ( 3) t he l evel of
or di nar y ski l l i n t he ar t ; and ( 4) any obj ect i ve
evi dence of nonobvi ousness. The obj ect i ve evi dence
. . . i ncl udes i ndust r y skept i ci sm, l ong- f el t
i 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. Maer sk
Cont r act or s, USA, I nc. , 617 F. 3d 1296, 1303 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010)
( ci t i ng Gr ahamv. 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) .
26

2. Pr esumpt i on of Val i di t y and Bur den of Pr oof
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 mt 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 he
pr ocedur al bur den of pr oceedi ng f i r st and est abl i shi ng
a pr i ma- f aci e case, but t he bur den of per suasi on on
t he mer i t s r emai ns wi t h t he par t y unt i l f i nal
deci si on. The par t y suppor t i ng val i di t y has no
i ni t i al bur den t o pr ove val i di t y, havi ng been gi ven a
pr ocedur al advant age r equi r i ng t hat he come f or war d
onl y af t er a pr i ma- f aci e case of i nval i di t y has been
made.
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 Pr oceedi 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 t he [ PTO] of any cl ai mof 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 at es: Any per son at any t i me may ci t e t o t he
Of 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 ed
publ i cat i ons whi ch t he per son bel i eves t o have a bear i ng on t he
pat ent abi l i t y of any cl ai mof 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 a
Feder al cour t or t he [ PTO] i n whi ch t he pat ent owner t ook a
posi t i on on t he scope of any cl ai mof a par t i cul ar pat ent . 45
U. S. C. 301( a) .
27

r eexami nat i ons t o pr ovi de an i mpor t ant qual i t y check on
pat ent s t hat woul d al l ow t he gover nment 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 mof
t he pat ent concer ned i s r ai 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 t he 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 andar d of pr oof a pr eponder ance 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
mar ks omi t t ed) . Mor eover , t he t wo f or ums can consi der
di f f er ent evi dence. Et hi con, I nc. v. Qui gg, 849 F. 2d at 1428.
28

The f i ndi ngs of a pat ent r eexami nat i on pr oceedi ng pr ovi 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 t he val i di t y
of a r eexami ned pat ent whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t l at er
f i nds i nval i d. Thi s i s essent i al l y what occur s when a
cour 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 ums
may be ent i r el y r easonabl e. And, i f t he di st r i ct
cour t det er mi nes a pat ent i s not i nval i d, t he PTO
shoul 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 or
det 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 der s an enhanced bur den t o t he
ext ent 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
ot her t han t hat whi ch was consi der ed 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 t o a qual i f i ed
gover nment agency pr esumed t o have pr oper 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) .

29

4. Pat ent I nf r i ngement
To pr ove 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 pat ent 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 eponder ance 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 mConst 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 mi nt o wor ds. Ver bal descr i pt i ons of desi gn
pat ent cl ai ms ar e not necessar y wher e, as her e, t he cl ai mi 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
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 omt 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 ar e 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 pher al di amonds ar e smal l er t han t he
cent er di amond. A j ur y al so can easi l y obser ve t hat t he
per i pher al di amonds have a di f f er ent cut f r omt 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 at her
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 r a Par t I I . B. 2. a.
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 mand t her ef or e a ver bal descr i pt i on i s not necessar y.
17

2. Pr est i ge s Mot i on f or Summar y 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 er ent 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 at ed 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 per f or med 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 mor e or f ewer t han ni ne per i pher al 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 mi nt o
wor 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 as
t hey r el at e t o t he accused desi gn. Egypt i an Goddess, 543 F. 3d
at 680.
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) .
Pr est 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 or med t he best and
st at ed t hat he used a l i ght box t o t est 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 t he 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 or nament 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 ar y t ool s and t est s does not mean t he r esul t i ng desi gn
i s f unct i onal . Pr esumabl y, most desi gns ar e devel oped not on a
whi mbut 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 sur veys, 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 oma 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
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 omt 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 omdesi gn pat ent pr ot ect i on. I d. at 456.
The cour t not ed t hat desi gn pat ent pr ot 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 gener al hi t chcover concept t hat mer el 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
wer e f ound t o be f unct i onal because t hey act ual l y per f or med a
f unct i ont hey not onl y caused t he hi t chcover t o l ook l i ke a

18
Pr est i ge emphasi zes t hat t he 132 Pat ent does not depi ct
anyt hi 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, 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 ar e 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 t
f ai l s t o see how t hi s ar gument suggest s t hat t he desi gn i s
f unct i onal . I f anyt hi ng, t he absence of t echni cal det ai l s about
how t he ar r angement shoul d be composed, i ndi cat es t hat t he 132
Pat ent was concer ned onl y wi t h t he appear ance and not hi ng mor e.

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 t he 132 Pat ent 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 ext end [ 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. ( Pr est i ge s Memo. , at 9- 10. ) The Cour t
f ai l s t o see how El mer suppor t s Pr est i ge s ar gument 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 . Pr est i ge emphasi zes t hat
t he 132 Pat ent does not depi ct anyt hi 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 on
per f or mance or mi mi cr y of a sol i t ai r e di amond wer e consi der ed
f unct i onal , Pr est i ge s ar gument woul d st i l l f ai l . Thi s i s
because wher e, as her e, t her e ar e sever al ways t o achi eve t he
f 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 e
i 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 an
at hl et i c shoe desi gn wer e or nament al even t hough t hey al so
ser ved a f unct i onal pur pose because t her e wer e ot her ways of
desi gni ng at hl et i c shoes t o per f or mt he f unct i ons of t he
el ement s of t he . . . desi gn and [ i ] n t oday s mar ket pl ace, t he
pr i macy of appear ance i n t he desi gn of shoes [ cannot ] be i gnor ed
when anal yzi ng f unct i onal i t y) . Not wi t hst andi ng Rocky Wong s
subj ect i ve pr ef er ence f or a par t i cul ar desi gn, t her e i s no
di sput e t hat t her e ar e mul t i pl e ways t o cr eat e a cl ust er di amond
ar r angement t hat mi mi cs a l ar ge sol i t ai r e.
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 ar e 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 . Pr est 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 h
Respect 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 t he
dr awi ngs di scl ose no ot her or nament at i on or mechani smasi 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 ar r angement wher eas Pr est i ge makes
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 pat ent shows onl y a di amond ar r angement i sol at ed
f r oma 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 at ut 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 scr et 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 ma 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 ma 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
37

depi ct s an or nament 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 t her e i s no l egal basi s f or gr ant i ng
summar y 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 ] her e 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 Cor p. v. Wal l gr eens Cor p. , 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 Pr est 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 ent
appl 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.
38

t o whet her Pr est 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 Pr est 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,
Pr est 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
Pr est i ge s mot i on f or summar y j udgment on t he i ssue of pat ent
i nf r i ngement .
21

3. Def endant s Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment
Def endant s move f or par t i al summar y j udgment di smi ssi ng
Pr est i ge s cl ai mt 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
summar y j udgment i s gr ant ed.

21
Because Pr est i ge s mot i on f or summar y j udgment on Def endant s
LanhamAct count er cl ai mi s der i vat i ve of i t s ar gument s r egar di ng
i nf r i ngement and val i di t y, t he Cour t al so deni es Pr est i ge s
mot i on wi t h r espect t o t he LanhamAct count er cl ai m.
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 r equi 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 eponder ant 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 t he pat ent chal l enger has pr esent 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) ) .
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 r emai ns i nt act and t he
ul t i mat e bur den of pr ovi ng i nval i di t y r emai 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 andumof Law i n Opposi t i on
t o Def endant s Mot i on f or Par t i al Summar y J udgment , dat ed 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 mt 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 ar gument 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) .
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
Pr est 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 whet her 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 or
not t he Cour t shoul d consi der t he f i ndi ngs of t he PTO i n t he
r eexami nat i on pr oceedi ngs. The Cour t consi der s t he PTO s
f i ndi ngs t o t he ext ent t hey pr ovi des hel pf ul gui dance and
backgr 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 Pr est i ge s summar y j udgment
mot i on woul d be t he same r egar dl ess of t he PTO s r eexami nat i ons.
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 cr uci al cl ai mof 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 Pr est i ge means t hat an or di nar y 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 st 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 mpor t ant
aspect of t he desi gn. How t he st ones ar e ar r anged,
how many st ones ar e used, t he si zes of t he st ones
r 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 e
al l pr i mar y f act or s I consi der when I amdesi gni ng
j 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 her
f act s l i ke col or and cl ar i t y, i n t er ms of desi gni ng
43

cl ust er t op di amond j ewel r y wher e t he goal i s t o make
many 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 s
case, 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 l
i mpr essi on t hat t he j ewel r y i s composed of a si ngl e
l 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 ompr 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
summar y 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 t hat 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 oman 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
44

t hat t he r espect i 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) ) .
Her e, Pr est i ge must over come t he 132 Pat ent s pr esumpt 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 omi 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 er ent di amond cut s.
Cohen st at es:
I have . . . f ound t hat t he t ypi cal buyer t o whomI am
sel l i ng j ewel r y, i ncl udi ng t he t ype of j ewel r y at
i ssue i n t hi s case, i s a per son who can di st i ngui sh
bet ween si ngl e- cut and f ul l - cut di amonds when
speci f i cal l y pr esent ed wi t h t hem, as Def endant s
suggest ; however , I have f ound i n my exper i ence t hat
such a per son i s mor e l i kel y t o f i r st obser ve and
comment on t he ar r angement of t he st ones, how many
st ones ar e used i n t hat ar r angement , and t he si ze of
t 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 an
ar r angement of t he t ypes at i ssue i n t hi s case i s not
a maj or det ai l t hat any di amond j ewel r y buyer t o whom
I have sol d pr oduct s not i ces when pr esent ed wi t h a
cl ust er ar r angement of di amonds.
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 obser ver 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 obser ver ) 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 t hat 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 cut s. 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 memor andumst at es 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
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 ar t 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
Pr est i ge shows t he ar r angement of a cent er st one t hat i s
compar at i vel y l ar ger 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, Pr est 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. ) Pr est 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
47

exper t t est i mony cannot def eat summar y 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 pr oper 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
sur mi se. The par t y opposi ng summar y j udgment may not r el y si mpl y
on concl usor y st at ement s or on cont ent i ons t hat t he af f i davi t s
suppor t i ng t he mot i on ar e not cr edi bl e, or upon t he 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] owher e i n t he paper s submi t t ed on t hese mot i ons, however ,
does counsel of f er f act s t o suppor t [ i t s] asser t i on. No exper t
af f i davi t or document ar y evi dence i s submi t t ed. Pl ai nt i f f cannot
si mpl y r est on t he pl eadi ngs, conj ect ur e, and specul at i on and
expect t o sur vi ve t hi s mot i on f or summar y j udgment . ) . As
Pr est i ge st at es i n i t s memor andum, [ t ] ypi cal l y, evi dence

23
The di scover y deadl i ne i n t hi s case was August 1, 2012. ( See
Let t er f r omPr est i ge t o t he Cour t , dat ed J ul y 25, 2013 ( dkt . no.
88 Ex. B, at 1) ( [ D] i scover y i n t hi s mat t er cl osed on August 1,
2012 . . . . ) . ) Thus, Pr est i ge has had an ampl e oppor t uni t y t o
i dent i f y exper t t est i mony or any ot her evi dence t o suppor t i t s
cl ai ms of i nval i di t y.
48

concer ni ng ant i ci pat i on t akes t he f or mof t est i mony f r omone
ski l l ed i n t he ar t t hat i dent i f i es each cl ai mel ement , st at es
t he wi t ness i nt er pr et at i on f r omone ski l l ed i n t he ar t t hat
i dent i f i es each cl ai mel ement , and expl ai ns i n det ai l how each
cl ai mel ement i s di scl osed i n t he pr i or ar t r ef er ence. ( Def s.
Memo. , at 10. ) ( quot i ng Schumer , 308 F. 3d at 1315) . Pr est i ge
has of f er ed no such t est i mony except f or t he Cr i t i des and Cohen
decl ar at i ons.
I n sum, t he onl y evi dence Pr est i ge of f er s t o count er
Def endant s pr esumpt i on of val i di t y i s uncor r obor at ed t est i mony
f r omt wo of i t s empl oyees and t he pr omi se of f ut ur e, unspeci f i ed
exper t t est i mony. Const r ui ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most
f avor abl e t o Pr est i ge, no r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat
Pr est i ge has over come t he 132 Pat ent s pr esumpt i on of val i di t y
by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. Accor di ngl y, summar y j udgment
i s gr ant ed i n f avor of Def endant s on t he i ssue of ant i ci pat i on.

d. Obvi ousness
Wi t h r espect t o obvi ousness, Pr est i ge cl ai ms t hat al l of
t he el ement s of t he 132 Pat ent desi gn ar e depi ct ed i n pr i or
ar t and woul d be obvi ous t o any or di nar y desi gner ski l l ed i n t he
ar t of j ewel r y desi gn. ( Pr est i ge s Opp. , at 13. ) Pr est i ge
agai n r el i es on t he Cr i t i des and Cohen decl ar at i ons f or suppor t .
49

Cohen s decl ar at i on cont ends t hat t he 132 Pat ent i s not hi ng but
a mi nor and obvi oust wi st on an ol d desi gn:
I have seen cl ust er ar r angement s such as t he ones at
i ssue i n t hi s case si nce I was a chi l d i n my f at her s
st or es when t he ar r angement was cal l ed t he Kent ucky
Cl ust er . I have al so seen desi gns of cl ust er j ewel r y
wher e t her e ar e ni ne smal l er st ones sur r ounded by a
l ar ger st one, si mi l ar t o Def endant s desi gn. Thus, I
cannot see how usi ng a 9+1 ar r angement wi t h mi xed cut s
i n a moder n day Kent ucky Cl ust er has any new, novel
or uni que mer i t t o i t si nce t hi s was al l done bef or e.
( Cohen Decl . 10. ) Cohen al so cl ai ms t hat t her e i s
not hi ng cr eat i ve or unusual about mi xi ng di amond cut s i n a
j ewel r y ar r angement :
Based on my year s of exper i ence i n sel l i ng t hi s t ype
of j ewel r y, t he use of f ul l - cut di amonds wi t h si ngl e-
cut di amonds i n a si ngl e ar r angement i s not a new
i dea. Pr est i ge has been manuf act ur i ng and sel l i ng
di amond ar r angement s cont ai ni ng di f f er ent t ypes of
st one cut s f or as l ong as I have been wor ki ng t her e.
The same i s t r ue of ot her compani es at whi ch I have
wor ked.
( I d. at 9. )
Cr i t i des makes a si mi l ar poi nt when she st at es:
I have al ways exper i ment ed wi t h . . . di f f er ent
combi nat i ons of cut s and si zes of st ones, whi ch
i ncl uded mi xi ng and mat chi ng t he cut s of t he st ones i n
a si ngl e pi ece of j ewel r y, such as pai r i ng f ul l - cut
st ones wi t h si ngl e- cut st ones wi t h emer al d- cut st ones,
et c. However , because t he st ones ar e so smal l , t he
t ype of cut I use f or t he st ones i s onl y a mi nor
consi der at i on.
( Cr i t i des Decl . 7. ) The Cr i t i des decl ar at i on al so seeks
t o r ebut t he evi dence of nonobvi ousness ci t ed by
Def endant s. As not ed above, obj ect i ve evi dence of
50

nonobvi ousness i ncl udes i ndust r y skept i ci sm, l ong- f el t
i 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. Maer sk
Cont r act or s, USA, I nc. , 617 F. 3d 1296, 1303 ( Fed. Ci r .
2010) . Speci f i cal l y, Cr i t i des st at es t hat t he 132 Pat ent
i s not count er - i nt ui t i ve i n t he f ace of i ndust r y skept i ci sm
and di d not meet a l ong- f el t i ndust r y need:
[ T] he use of smal l si ngl e- cut per i pher y di amonds wi t h
a l ar ger f ul l cut di amond i s not a count er i nt ui t i ve
st ep f or any desi gner t o make when cr eat i ng one of
t hose cl ust er ar r angement s. I have been combi ni ng
di f f er ent cut s of st ones i n my j ewel r y ar r angement s
f or at l east as l ong as I have been wor ki ng wi t h
Pr est i ge. Ful l - cut ar r angement s exi st . Si ngl e- cut
ar r angement s exi st . Mi xed- cut ar r angement s exi st .
Cl ust er j ewel r y i n a 9+1 ar r angement exi st . Based on
my t hi r t y year s of exper i ence i n t he j ewel r y desi gn
i ndust r y, t her e i s not hi ng new, novel , or uni que about
Def endant s desi gn of usi ng a l ar ger f ul l - cut cent er
st one sur r ounded by ni ne smal l er si ngl e- cut st ones.
( Cr i t i des Decl . 9. ) Cr i t i des f ur t her st at es:
Mor eover t her e i s no r eason why I , or any ot her
desi gner , woul d f eel bound t o use t he same cut of
di amonds f or bot h t he cent er and per i pher y st ones. . .
. [ I ] f t he pur pose i s not t o per cei ve t he i ndi vi dual
st ones, t her e i s no r eason why I woul d be bound t o use
one t ype of st one over anot her . . . . And . . . t he
i dea of mi xi ng and mat chi ng di f f er ent st one cut s has
been i n t he mar ket pl ace, and at Pr est i ge, f or many
year s. Def endant s ar r angement of ni ne si ngl e- cut
st ones sur r ounded by one l ar ger , f ul l - cut st one i s not
a new i dea. Thi s ar r angement i s not meet i ng any l ong-
f el t need f or mi xed ar r angement s si nce t hey have been
i n t he mar ket pl ace f or many year s al r eady.
( I d. 10- 11. )
51

The Cohen and Cr i t i des decl ar at i ons do not pr ovi de
suf f i ci ent evi dence t hat an or di nar y desi gner ski l l ed i n t he ar t
woul d consi der t he Def endant s desi gn t o be obvi ous. As not ed
above, uncor r obor at ed t est i mony of i nt er est ed par t i es, such as
Cohen and Cr i t i des, i s unl i kel y t o const i t ut e cl ear and
convi nci ng evi dence of i nval i di t y. The Cohen and Cr i t i des
decl ar at i ons ar e especi al l y unavai l i ng i n l i ght of Def endant s
obj ect i ve evi dence of nonobvi ousness. Def endant s have
pr esent ed evi dence suggest i ng t hat Pr est i ge copi ed t he 132
desi gn. ( See, e. g. , Second Moskowi t z Exs. 28, 29. ) Ther e i s
al so evi dence t hat Pr est i ge s Uni t y desi gn wi t h a f ul l - cut
cent er di amond sur r ounded by si ngl e- cut per i pher al di amonds was
mor e commer ci al l y successf ul t han t he ver si on of t he Uni t y
desi gn wi t h onl y f ul l - cut di amonds. ( See, e. g. , Kot har i Dep.
Tr . , at 105: 13- 21. ) Of cour se, Pr est i ge i nt er pr et s t hi s
evi dence di f f er ent l y f r omDef endant s. But i t bear s r epeat i ng
once agai n t hat Pr est i ge, not Def endant s, bear s t he bur den of
pr ovi ng obvi ousness. Pr est i ge has not pr esent ed suf f i ci ent
evi dence t o over come by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t he 132
Pat ent s pr esumpt i on of val i di t y and has not suf f i ci ent l y
r ef ut ed t he cr edi bl e evi dence of nonobvi ousness submi t t ed by
Def endant s. Accor di ngl y, Def endant s mot i on f or summar y j udgment
on t he quest i on of obvi ousness i s GRANTED.
52

I I I . CONCLUSI ON
For t he r easons di scussed above, Pr est i ge s mot i on f or
summar y j udgment [ dkt . no. 69] i s DENI ED. Def endant s mot i on
f or par t i al summar y j udgment [ dkt . no. 91] i s GRANTED.
Def endant s count er cl ai ms f or pat ent i nf r i ngement and LanhamAct
vi ol at i ons shal l pr oceed t o t r i al . The par t i es shal l i nf or mt he
Cour t no l at er t han Oct ober 1, 2014 as t o how t hey pr opose t o
pr oceed.

SO ORDERED.
Dat ed: New Yor k, New Yor k
Sept ember 15, 2014

___________________________
LORETTA A. PRESKA
Chi ef U. S. Di st r i ct J udge


Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

You might also like