This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement
Design Patents

Grand General Accessories Manufacturing, a California corp. v. United Pacific Industries Inc., a California corp.; Lucidity Enterprise Co. Ltd., a corp. of Taiwan

Published: May 14, 2011 | Result Date: Sep. 17, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV-08-07078 DDP (VBKx) Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas I. Rozsa
(Rozsa Law Group LC)


Defendant

Raymond K. Chan

Konrad L. Trope

Dariush Adli
(ADLI Law Group)

Thomas T. Chan

Rex Hwang


Facts

Grand General Accessories Manufacturing (GGAM) owned several design patents associated with automotive stop/tail/turn (STT) lights, which were united by a light bulb reflector referred to as a "web comb design." The design contained several facets arranged in grid pattern on the inside of a parabolic reflector and a light bulb positioned in the reflector's center. GGAM filed an action against United Pacific Industries Inc. and Lucidity Enterprise Co., alleging that defendants infringed on seven STT design patents, and another non-STT patent, that used the web comb design and trade dress infringement based on the Lanham Act. Defendants moved for summary judgment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that defendants copied its patented designs and intended to duplicate its products. Further, plaintiff claimed that it became aware of the infringing decorative vehicle lights in 2008.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that plaintiff's patents were invalid because plaintiff failed to disclose known prior art.

Result

The court granted defendants' summary judgment motion, finding that five of the eight patents were invalid. Later, the parties agreed to a consent judgment that invalidated all eight patents with plaintiff paying defendants $100,000.


#105405

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390