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

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

Opinion

 [***1260]  [*1317]   HOLDERMAN, Chief District Judge.

Appellant Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc. ("Calmar") appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Arminak & Associates, Inc. ("Arminak"), finding that the design of  [**2] Arminak's "AA Trigger" shroud did not  [*1318]  infringe Calmar's two design patents, U.S. Patents Nos. Des. 381,581 ("the '581 patent") and Des. 377,602 ("the '602 patent"). Arminak & Assoc., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). We affirm.

I. Background

Calmar and Arminak are both in the business of selling trigger sprayers to producers of liquid household products. A trigger sprayer is a device that is attached atop the cap of a bottle containing liquid, with a tube extending from the trigger sprayer device into the liquid. When the trigger of the sprayer device is manually pulled back, liquid is drawn up the tube into the sprayer device and is dispersed as a spray or mist out of the device's nozzle. The outside cover of the top portion of the sprayer device behind the nozzle and above the trigger mechanism is called the shroud, which is typically made of a molded plastic design.

In 1997, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") granted Calmar two design patents--the '581 and '602 patents--on two trigger sprayer shroud designs. Calmar thereafter produced a commercial embodiment of the '581 patent called the "ERGO" shroud. No commercial embodiment of the  [**3] shroud design set forth in the '602 patent has been produced.

In 2004, Arminak began selling its "AA Trigger" sprayer with the accused shroud design. In October 2004, Calmar informed one of Arminak's customers that Calmar believed the shroud design of Arminak's AA Trigger sprayer infringed Calmar's '581 and '602 design patents. On November 16, 2004, Arminak filed a declaratory judgment action against Calmar in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. Calmar counterclaimed, alleging infringement of its '581 and '602 design patents. Arminak filed an amended complaint adding allegations of patent invalidity and certain state law claims against Calmar. After a period of pretrial discovery, Arminak moved for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim, asserting that Arminak's AA Trigger shroud's design does not infringe Calmar's patents. On March 20, 2006, the district court in a detailed opinion determined that the shroud of Arminak's AA Trigger does not infringe Calmar's '581 and '602 design patents. Arminak, 424 F. Supp. 2d at 1189-90. On May 9, 2006, the district court dismissed Calmar's patent  [**4] infringement counterclaims, stayed the litigation as to Arminak's patent invalidity and state law claims, and entered judgment in Arminak's favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.