Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wallace v. Ideavillage Products Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage

March 2, 2018

ALLYSON WALLACE, Plaintiff,
v.
IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP.; KEVIN J. O'CONNOR; and LUM, DRASCO & POSITAN LLC, Defendants.

          OPINION [DKT. NO. 1]

          RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Allyson Wallace (the “Plaintiff”) initiated this action on February 9, 2018 with the filing of a complaint (the “Complaint”), to which Plaintiff attached voluminous exhibits. [Dkt. No. 1]. Also attached to the Complaint is an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Dkt. No. 1-7]. Based on Plaintiff's affidavit of indigence, the Court will grant her application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and order the Clerk of the Court to open this matter and file the Complaint.

         At this time, because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court must preliminarily screen the Complaint, and must dismiss if the Complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. Background

         On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Ideavillage Products Corp. (“Ideavillage”); Kevin J. O'Connor (“O'Connor”); and Lum, Drasco and Positan LLC (“LDP” and collectively, the “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Ideavillage has infringed Plaintiff's design patent on the “Body Washing Brush, ” Patent No. 485, 990 (the “Patent”). (Compl. at 3).

         This is not the first time Plaintiff has sued Ideavillage in this district for alleged infringement of the Patent.[1] In Wallace v. Spin Spa, Civ. No. 06-5673 (JAD), Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 27, 2006 alleging that “Spin Spa, Inc.” had infringed the Patent. As it turned out, Spin Spa is the name of the allegedly infringing product, whose manufacturer was Ideavillage. [See 06-5673, Dkt. No. 16-2 at 1]. On March 28, 2011, the court granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to name Ideavillage, rather than Spin Spa, and on May 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Ideavillage as the defendant and alleging one count of patent infringement. [Id. at Dkt. No. 26, 27].

         On November 16, 2012, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson, and the case was reassigned to Judge Dickson. On December 11, 2013, Ideavillage filed a motion for summary judgement. [Id. at Dkt. No. 61]. Judge Dickson granted Ideavillage's motion on September 15, 2014, dismissing Plaintiff's entire case with prejudice. See Wallace v. Ideavillage Prod. Corp., No. 06-CV-5673-JAD, 2014 WL 4637216, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2014). This decision was based on the court's recognition of “manifest differences in the overall appearance” of the Patent and the allegedly infringing Ideavillage product and its finding that “[Plaintiff] cannot, as a matter of law, prove that the designs appear substantially the same.” Id. at *4; see Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The court further undertook a comparison of the Patent and the prior art and held that “no reasonable ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the I[deavillage] [p]roduct is the same as the design depicted in the” Patent. Wallace, 2014 WL 4637216 at *5; see Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d. at 676.

         Plaintiff appealed the court's grant of summary judgment for Ideavillage, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 3, 2016. See Wallace v. Ideavillage Prod. Corp., 640 Fed.Appx. 970 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

         II. Legal Standard

         As stated above, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must preliminarily screen IFP filings, and must dismiss any filing that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain:

(1) [A] short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) [A] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) [A] demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.