However, the Court found that there is at least one element that is missing from the Black Radiance packaging.

The plaintiffsâ€™ contend that all of the elements are present in the Black Radiance compact. The parties dispute whether Black Radiance contains all of the elements of the plaintiffsâ€™ patent. The Black Radiance does not infringe on the plaintiffsâ€™ patent and therefore summary judgment is granted.

Doctrine of equivalents infringement provides that the item performs substantially the same overall function or work, in substantially the same way, to obtain substantially the same overall result. Literal infringement requires that all of the patents claims must be present in the infringing item. A patent may also be infringed upon if that patent is literally infringed upon or infringed upon under doctrine of equivalents. Patent infringement requires the determination of whether the claims of a patent â€œread onâ€ the product accused of infringement. The plaintiffs indicated that Pavionâ€™s Black Radiance compact was an infringing product.ĭoes Pavionâ€™s Black Radiance compact infringe on the plaintiffsâ€™ patent. On Jthe Court instructed the plaintiffs to specify which products were infringing on their patent. This is done by encasing the bottom portion of the compact within the molded plastic in a manner that allows the top portion of the compact to open and close freely.

This enables the customer to view the powder and its color directly while at the same time protecting the powder from direct exposure. Blister packaging is a means of displaying a cosmetic compact by placing it on a piece of cardboard with a hardened plastic cover over it. Pavion Ltd., one of the defendants, moves for summary judgment. Maybelline Co., et al.Īrtmatic USA Cosmetics and Arthur Matney have sued fifteen defendants for patent infringement of their blister packaging for cosmetics.

80s artmatic powder