|
Settlement reached in Pandora patent lawsuit
September 05, 2008
Baltimore—A federal judge in Baltimore recently settled a lawsuit between two makers of the personalized, beaded jewelry that has become so popular among consumers. In a ruling filed on Aug. 8, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, representing the District of Maryland, ruled that the jewelry of Minneapolis-based Chamilia did not infringe on the patent of Danish manufacturer Pandora, court papers show. But Blake also rejected Chamilia's allegations that Pandora's patent was invalid. Among other claims, Chamilia tried to argue that "Danish newspapers and Pandora's catalogs and Web site described the invention more than one year prior to the date of the patent application," thereby rendering the patent invalid. The case centers around a patent issued to Pandora for its charm jewelry, which was designed to "prevent bunching" of the charms and "retain beads on a necklace in a desirable distribution," court papers said. To accomplish those two goals, Pandora jewelry uses a decorative keeper in concert with a band that keeps the beads on the strand from moving. Pandora permanently fixes the bands at predetermined points on its jewelry. "The wearer has the option to attach a keeper to the band, thereby preventing bunching and obtaining some degree of control over the placement of the beads," court papers state. The design of the Chamilia jewelry, the court determined, is "significantly different" from the patented Pandora jewelry because it uses a hinged lock which reversibly attaches to the band and can be "removed or placed at any location on the band the wearer chooses." The Chamilia jewelry, "allows the wearer to place as many locks on the band as desired, with the effect of preventing bunching, while also allowing a greater degree of flexibility in bead placement," court papers said. According to the judge, this signifies a big difference. "Considering that both Pandora and Chamilia seek to provide customers maximum flexibility in designing their charm jewelry, it is significant that Chamilia provides an alternative method for placing beads and preventing their bunching," court papers said. The judge found that because Chamilia's reversibly attaching locks are substantially different from Pandora's permanently fixed bands, Chamilia's jewelry does not violate Pandora's patent because it "does not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents," court papers said. The ruling suggested the companies provide an alternative for consumers who want to use the beads of the two brands interchangeably. "The interchangeability of Chamilia and Pandora beads, which are unpatented, only promotes competition and choice for consumers," court papers state. Chamilia CEO Jeff Julkowski said they were "thrilled" with the court's ruling, adding that they agree with the judge's assertion that the ruling promotes more choice for consumers. "In addition to vindicating our long-held position, this ruling will enable Chamilia to serve even more retailers and allow consumers a greater ability to design and personalize their jewelry," he said. Pandora did not respond to request for comment.
|