SKULL SHAVER, LLC v. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP., No. 2:2018cv03836 - Document 105 (D.N.J. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Evelyn Padin on 12/28/2022. (qa, )

Download PDF

SKULL SHAVER, LLC v. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP. Doc. 105 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 22 PageID: 804 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SKULL SHAVER, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-3836 (EP) (AME) Plaintiff, OPINION v. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant. PADIN, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant motion for summary judgment, in which it asserts non-i Civ. P. 56. The Court decides this matter on the papers pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and L.Civ.R.78.1(b). motion will be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Skull Shaver is a New Jersey corporation. Id. ¶ 2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) because the cause of action arises under the United States Patent Laws, particularly, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 289. Id. ¶ 3. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 22 PageID: 805 Skull Shaver designs and sells electric shavers, including the patented Head Shaver product at issue here. Id. ¶¶ 5-6;1 see also D.E. 74-4. The design patent for the Head Shaver product was issued on November 5, 2013. Compl. ¶ 6. -4. The parties agree that the Head Shaver has four major elements: (1) an egg-shaped handle with concave grooves on the underside and sides of the handle; (2) an extended neck; (3) a collar; and (4) a flat shave head. D.E. 74- - Accordi Head Shaver. Compl. ¶ 6. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 12. On July 9, 2019, a design patent for the Flawless Legs product was issued to IDV see also D.E. 746. D.E. 74-6. While the parties agree that there are dissimilarities between the patented design and the whether these dissimilarities are merely exampl See D.E. 74- -18; see also -26. Skull Shaver filed this action on March 20, 2018. See Compl. Skull Shaver alleges that , 2018, Judge Arleo after finding that, based on the plausibility of the pleadings and 1 The Court uses the assigned paragraph numbers in the Complaint, despite the numbering error on the second page. 2 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 22 PageID: 806 the benefit that would be obtained from a complete evidentiary record, the Court could not determine n had been infringed. See D.E. 15. Now, with the benefit of a more complete evidentiary record, IDV moves for summary See Mot. IDV asserts that the Flawless Legs product does not infringe on the Head Shaver design because the two are not substantially the same. Id. Being fullyjudgment motion. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW dispute as to any material fact an Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 136, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004). the evidence is such that a reasonable jury c Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude the Court from granting a motion for summary judgment. See id. The moving party must support its motion by citing to specific materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Once the moving party has adequately supported its motion, the burden shifts to the r by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). The 3 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 22 PageID: 807 nonmoving party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that contradict the moving party. Anderson Thimons v. PNC Bank, Messa v. Omaha Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 122 F. Supp. 2d 523, 528 (D.N.J. 2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250-51. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment Marina v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). But if summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. III. DISCUSSION A. Legal Framework The patent system aims to promote advancements of the arts and sciences by protecting investment in research and minimizing free-riding. To achieve this aim, inventors are granted the exclusive right to profit from their inventions for a period of years. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 330 (1945). This exclusive right is preserved by the presumption that all existing patents are valid, 35 U.S.C. § 22 (1994), and this presumption can 4 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 808 only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., WMS Gaming Inc. , 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A design patent only protects the novel, ornamental components of the patented design. See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also 35 U.S.C. § 171(a). In other words, only the non-functional components of a product are protected. Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The validity of a patent may be attacked in several different ways. For example, where a See Polymer Indus. Products Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. -18 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Additionally, if already existed in the public domain when the patent was obtained then it will be deemed invalid. Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2011). But where an inventor holds a valid patent, the inventor may bring suit against any parties Infringement upon a design patent occurs when a party, without license of the owner, either applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation therefore, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied. Super-Sparkly Safety Stuff, LLC v. Skyline USA, Inc. 2020) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 289) (quotation marks omitted). In determining whether an accused product infringes a patented design, courts engage in a two-step analysis. Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), , 517 U.S. 370 (1996). First, a court construes the patent. Id. 5 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 6 of 22 PageID: 809 Specifically, with respect to a design patent, courts need not conduct elaborate claim construction in the first step because a design patent is construed as it is shown in the patent drawings. See Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886) (explaining that an illustration depicts see also Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. esign patents are typically claimed as shown in drawings, and claim construction must ; MSA Products, Inc. v. Nifty Home Products, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 2d 535, 540-41 (D.N.J. 2012) (citation omitted). Additionally, because design OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Second, the factfinder compares the accused product to the patented design to determine infringement. Gorman Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 526 (1871); see also OddzOn Products, Inc., 122 F.3d at 1404-05. This is a question of fact. L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1993). fringement has occurred. Crocs, Inc., 598 F.3d at 1301. observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 527 (1871); see also Crocs, Inc., 598 F.3d at ary observer, familiar with the prior 6 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 7 of 22 PageID: 810 art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented The ordinary observer test proceeds in two stages. See Wallace v. Ideavillage Prods. Corp., 0, 971-72 (Fed. Cir. 2016 design will be sufficiently distinct that it will be clear without more that the patentee has not met Id. at 972 (citing Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)). then there is no infringement, and the inquiry ends here. See Super-Sparkly Safety Stuff, LLC Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 678). But, [i]n other instances, when the claimed and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar, resolution of the question whether the ordinary observer would consider the two designs to be substantially the same will benefit from a comparison of the claimed and accused designs with the Id. between the claimed and accused designs that might not be noticeable in the abstract can become significant to the hypothetical ordinary observer who is conversant with the pr Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 678. Significantly, OddzOn Products, Inc., 122 F.3d at 1405 (citing Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 820 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Crocs, Inc., 598 F.3d at 1303 )( is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling in determining infringement. There 7 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 8 of 22 PageID: 811 can be no infringement based on the similarity of specific features if the overall appearance of the OddzOn Products, Inc., 122 F.3d at 1405. Typically, a side-by-side comparison is best. See, e.g., Crocs, Inc., 598 F.3d at 1304. Although the comparison in the second step is one for the factfinder, not the judge, a district reasonably be viewed as so similar to the claimed design that a purchaser familiar with the prior art would be deceived by the similarity between the claimed and accused designs, inducing him to Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 670 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Federal Circuit often affirms such decisions. See, e.g., Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 683; OddzOn Products, Inc., 122 F.3d at 1407. A. Skull Shaver claims that product Shaver design patent. In moving for summary judgment, IDV claims that its product does not patented design due to substantial differences and missing design features between the two products. Mot. at 1. Considering the legal framework explained in the preceding section, the Court now applies the two- Court concludes that it does not. 1. Claim Construction In the first step, the Court in the focuses on the ornamental features depicted . See Lanard Toys, Ltd. re claimed as shown in 8 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 9 of 22 PageID: 812 The Court does not consider any functional features of the Head in construing the claim. See id. claims - the seven figures depicted below.2 See id. Based on the above, there are at least four ornamental features within the scope of the patented design: (1) an egg-shaped handle with no corners (see FIG. 3 above); (2) an elongated neck separating the handle and the base (see FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7); (3) a collar beneath an elongated neck (see FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7); and (4) a flat base (see FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7). All four of these ornamental features, considered together, overall visual effect. The Court omits the corresponding descriptions because they describe only the view of each figure. 2 9 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 10 of 22 PageID: 813 IDV identifies one additional feature, which it claims is ornamental in nature: the concave grooves present on the underside and sides of the Head Shaver (see FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 above). The Court disagrees and factors out this feature because it is functional. Specifically, the concave See Stiles v. Walmart, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203768, at *35 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022) (concluding Accordingly, the Court concludes that the four ornamental features identified above, when considered together, 2. Ordinary Observer Test Turning now to the second step, the Court must apply the ordinary observer test. It is at this step that Skull Shaver primarily argues that material issues of fact exist, such that summary judgment in favor of IDV is inappropriate. The Court concludes that no material issues of fact exist, and as such, IDV is entitled to summary judgment. ed design because a side-by-side comparison of the accused product and the patented design demonstrates that the two are distinct observer test. Two side-by-side comparisons of view are provided below for completeness, because the two parties submitted slightly different angles, sizes, and color versus black-and-white versions. For each view and version, the and the corresponding views of the Flawless Legs product are depicted on the right. See Lanard 10 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 11 of 22 PageID: 814 Toys, Ltd., 958 F.3d at 1344 (noting that the accused product is to be compared to the claimed design, not a commercial embodiment) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Figure 1 IDV Version:3 Mot. at 11. Figure 1 Skull Shaver Version: 4 Figure 2 IDV Version:5 Mot. at 12. 3 Head Shaver (left). Flawless Legs (right). Head Shaver (left). Flawless Legs (right). 5 Head Shaver (left). Flawless Legs (right). 4 11 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 815 Figure 2 Skull Shaver Version: 6 Figure 3 IDV Version: Mot. at 12. Figure 3 Skull Shaver Version: Figure 4 IDV Version: 6 Head Shaver (left). Flawless Legs (right). 12 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 816 Mot. at 13. Figure 4 Skull Shaver Version:7 Figure 5 IDV Version: Mot. at 13. Figure 5 7 Skull Shaver Version: Head Shaver (left). Flawless Legs (right). 13 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 817 Figure 6 IDV Version:8 Mot. at 14. Figure 6 Skull Shaver Version: Figure 7 IDV Version: Mot. at 15. 8 Head Shaver (left). Flawless Legs (right). 14 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 818 Figure 7 Skull Shaver Version: 9 Although the accused product and the patented design share certain features, when the two are appreciated as a whole, the ornamental dissimilarities illustrate why an ordinary observer would not confuse one with the other. First, the shape of the handle: the Head Shaver design has an egg-shaped handle with no corners (see FIG. 1), whereas the Flawless Legs product has a computer mouse-shaped handle with two corners and a less pronounced curvature overall (see comparison to FIG. 1). See Black & Decker, Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Corp., 632 F. Supp. 185, 190 (D. Conn. 1986) (finding that the most obvious difference between the accused and claimed designs was the shape of their respective handles). Second, the elongated neck between the handle and the base: the Head Shaver design has an elongated neck separating the handle from the base (see FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7), whereas the Flawless Legs product does not have an elongated neck the handle appearing to be almost directly connected to the base (see comparison to FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7). See Minka Lighting, Inc. v. Maxim Lighting , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20948, at *19-20 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2009) (explaining that a distinct ornamental hook in the center portion of the lamp support arm readily distinguished the accused design from the claimed design, where the latter did not have this hook). 9 Head Shaver (left). Flawless Legs (right). 15 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 16 of 22 PageID: 819 Third, the collar below the elongated neck: the Head Shaver design has a collar directly below the elongated neck (see FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7), whereas the Flawless Legs product has no apparent collar the handle appears directly connected to the base (see comparison to FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7). Finally, the base: the Head Shaver design has a sleek, flat base (see FIG. 5 and FIG. 6), whereas the Flawless Legs product has a thicker, rounded base (see comparison to FIG. 5 and FIG. 6). See Wing Shing (BVI) Co. Ltd. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 357, 362, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that the base of the accused and claimed designs, which was a focal point of the overall design of the products, was so dissimilar that no ordinary observer would confuse the two). All of the dissimilarities described above are subject to no factual disputes and when appreciated in combination, make clear that the overall appearance of the Flawless Legs Product substantially differs from that of the Head Shaver design. As a result, an ordinary observer would not confuse one for the other. the ordinary observer would alter this conclusion. The Court will explain why. IDV takes the position that the ordinary observer is a customer who shops in a brick-andmortar retail store, where a substantial percentage of its Flawless Legs product is sold, and would, therefore, pay more attention to the differences between the two products. Mot. at 4-5. According customer who shops online, rather than an in-person shopper, that the and should be excluded. Id. at 21-22. Skull Shaver responds that an online customer would be able to zoom in on photographs of the product without any distracting packaging, , which implies that an online customer would pay just as much attention to the differences in the two products as would an in-person customer. Skull Shaver makes this implication in an effort to 16 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 820 support the reliability of its expert, but instead ends up demonstrating exactly why the identity of the ordinary observer, whether as an online or in-person customer, does not change the conclusion that the ordinary observer would not confuse the Head Shaver with the Flawless Legs. This is true regardless of: whether the ordinary observer is an online customer, who, as Skull Shaver points out would likely be able to zoom in on the photographs of the product, such that he/she would observe that the overall designs of the two products are different; or whether he/she is an in-person customer, who, would be able to tell that the overall designs of the two products differ, despite the presence of packaging. See Stiles, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203768, at *37-38 (explaining that a jury would compare not the two products in their packages, or even without their packages, but rather would compare the accused and claimed designs) (citing Lanard Toys, Ltd., 958 F.3d at 1344). Thus, the identity of the ordinary observer does not create a material issue of fact. Additionally, Skull Shaver argues that there are conflicting expert reports and that this acknowledges certain ornamental differences in the Head Shaver design and the Flawless Legs product, but concludes that the differences are minor, such that the two are substantially similar. See - See Mot. at 20 n.4. The Court disagrees First, while Skull Shaver accuses IDV of focusing on the individual ornamental features, rather than on overall appearance, Skull Shaver does just that by directing the Court to focus on minute similarities, while ignoring the clear dissimilarities in the overall appearance of the Head Shaver design and the Flawless Legs product. For example, Skull Shaver directs the Court to side views of the Head Shaver design and of the Flawless Legs product for the proposition that the two 17 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 18 of 22 PageID: 821 an egg-shaped body located almost centrally above an essentially rectangular base with rounded edges those side-by-side comparisons, considered as a whole, emphasize the different overall visual effect of the Head Shaver design and the Flawless Legs product. Specifically, the Head Shaver design has a distinct, elongated neck and collar, both of which are missing from the Flawless Legs product, as well as a distinct egg-shaped handle compared to the distinct computer mouse-shaped handle of the Flawless Legs product. Taken together, these prominent ornamental features, which are plainly evident in the side-by-side comparison, sufficiently convince the Court that there is no material issue of fact that the overall visual effect of the accused product and patented design differs. dissimilar ornamental features on the overall visual effect, this does not create a material issue of fact because a visual comparison reveals that the accused product is not substantially similar to the patented design. See H , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27056, at *39 - infringement under the ordinary observer test, expert testimony submitted by a plaintiff cannot create a material issue of fact where the visual comparison reveals that the alleged infringing see also Bush Indus. , 772 F. Supp. 1442, 1450 (D. Del. 1991) ( provide the fact that the parties submitted conflicting expert declarations on what an ordinary observer would conclude); Lawman Armor Corp. v. Master Lock Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3705, at *25-26 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2004), court,] note that nothing more is required under the ordinary observer analysis than conducting a 18 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 19 of 22 PageID: 822 visual comparison of the patented ; v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Court has visually compared the accused product with the patented design, which shows that the accused product and the patented design are substantially dissimilar. Thus, the conflicting expert reports do not create a material issue of fact. The Court notes that IDV also seeks to preclude the report and testimony expert, Hatch, but does not do this by way of a separate motion. See Mot. at 20-25. Skull Shaver argues D.E. 89- See - -3. In finding that the Flawless Legs product does not infringe upon matter of law, the Court does not rely on expert opinions, but rather on the side-by-side comparison of the accused product and the patented design. Thus, at this juncture, the Court need not resolve should be precluded. 504 P See at 29-32. Because, as Skull Shaver points out, the exception in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) excludes the 504 Patent from being prior art for the Head Shaver design, the Court agrees with Skull Shaver on this argument. But this conclusion does not alter the conclusion that IDV is entitled to summary judgment because where the Court has determined that the accused product and the claimed design, of the accused and patented designs with the prior art is not necessary. See Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 543 F.3d at 678-79 (explaining that 19 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 20 of 22 PageID: 823 ordinary observer question would benefit from a comparison with prior art). In Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc, 796 F.3d 1312, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the provided by the art, as resolution of the infringement inquiry was already clear Id. (citation omitted). With this, the Court material issue of fact because the side-by-side comparison shows that the accused and claimed design are plainly dissimilar to the ordinary observer. Patent Rules. Specifically, Skull Shaver claims that I Patent Rules should preclude summary judgment. See -10. According to Skull Shaver, IDV did not timely amend its non-infringement contentions to include its position that the ordinary observer is an in-person customer at a brick-and-mortar retail store. See id. IDV responds that it did not violate the Local Patent Rules position that IDV was required to define the ordinary observer in its non-infringement contentions. -10. According to IDV, Skull Shaver had not raised the issue of the ordinary given information relevant to Id. at 7. It follows, IDV asserts, that if IDV was required to amend its non-infringement contentions that so was Skull Shaver. See id. 20 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID: 824 dispute does not create a material issue of fact. ordinary observer is an online customer or an in-person customer at a brick-and-mortar retail store, but as the Court concludes above, regardless of whether the ordinary observer is an online or inperson customer, he/she would not confuse the accused product and the patented design because -infringement contentions were deficient, as Skull Shaver claims, they do not preclude summary judgment because Skull Shaver has waited until the present motion to raise this argument for the first time. See Shure Inc. v. Clearone, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177232, at *16 n.8 (D. Del. Sept. 17, - . Finally, Skull Shaver contends that summary judgment is inappropriate because Judge D.E. 89-1 at 4. According to Skull Shaver, if the two designs were not substantially similar, Judge Arleo would have dismissed the case. Id. But as IDV correctly points out, denial of a motion to dismiss does not preclude a subsequent motion for summary judgment. D.E 95 at 5. The Court also explicitly states i C&A Mktg., Inc. v. Gopro, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54671, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 2016). Accordingly, with the benefit of an evidentiary record and having applied the necessary two-step analysis, the Court now grants summary judgment in favor of IDV. 21 Case 2:18-cv-03836-EP-AME Document 105 Filed 12/28/22 Page 22 of 22 PageID: 825 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that no reasonable juror could nfringed upon by law. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, GRANTED. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion. Dated: December 28, 2022 _______________________ Hon. Evelyn Padin, U.S.D.J. 22

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.