Gillette v. Schick
Since I just mentioned one of the two ongoing lawsuits I'm following, I'm going to mention the other one: the patent-infringement lawsuit filed by Gillette against Energizer over Schick's new four-bladed Quattro razor (Schick being a subsidiary of Energizer).

Specifically, Gillette charges that Energizer has illegally incorporated the proprietary progressive blade geometry technology of the Mach3 system in the Schick product. Progressive geometry positions the blades to extend gradually closer to the beard, allowing for the closest, most comfortable shave in a single stroke.

Energizer has denied the charges:

Energizer denied that the QUATTRO infringes the patent; that it misappropriated Gillette's patented technology; and that a progressive geometric configuration for blades of a multi-blade razor is sufficiently innovative to be the subject of a patent. In addition, the company denied Gillette's assertions regarding Gillette's purported technological leadership over Schick. Energizer also denied that a four blade razor, such as the QUATTRO, would need to use the progressive geometric blade configuration which Gillette claims is protected by patent. In its filing, Energizer also asserted several defenses against Gillette's allegations, including that Gillette's patent is invalid and unenforceable.

I'd like to emphasize first that I'm not a patent lawyer, or even a non-patent lawyer, or a law student, or anyone to whom you should pay any attention on any issue that might be construed to be related to the law. None of this will prevent me from saying a few words about the assertion that "a progressive geometric configuration for blades of a multi-blade razor is [not] sufficiently innovative to be the subject of a patent." First, in case you are unaware of what this even means, a patent has to be "novel" to be valid (and, in theory, to be granted). This means that a reasonably-trained person in the razor-design industry should consider the innovation to be non-obvious. I'm under the impression that the defendants in most patent-infringement lawsuits challenge the validity of the patent on these grounds. At first glance, they would seem to have a good case here -- it doesn't seem all that remarkable to align the blades to be progressively closer to the skin. But -- as I read in the Boston Globe -- Gillette spent 20 years trying to make a three-blade razor that wouldn't irritate the skin. And -- again, this is a non-lawyer -- anything that takes 20 years to figure out can reasonably be supposed to be non-obvious.

Moving along, Energizer also said it would respond to the motion for a preliminary injunction by October 2. I haven't seen any news indicating whether that happened, or whether the injunction has been granted (neither company's press release web site mentions it). I have seen ads for the Quattro recently, but have not noticed whether the product is in stores.

One last interesting sidenote is that Energizer has sued Gillette over the slogan "The Best a Man Can Get", claiming that it amounts to false advertising. I have trouble seeing that lawsuit going anywhere, but -- as you may have read -- I'm not a lawyer.

- posted by Steven @ 9:41 AM