If it's patented, yes. So, really your question is, "Is that patentable?" Obviously it is, if Gillette has a patent on it, although patents can be challenged. That may be part of Gillette's plan: drown DSC in litigation. Just because DSC might have legal grounds to countersue (and I'm not saying they do) doesn't mean they have the practical means to do so. DSC doesn't have deep enough pockets to get into deeply entrenched warfare against Gillette/P&G the way Schick/Energizer did in the early part of last decade.
I disagree. I think the lawsuit aims to shut down DSC's sales (or even the company as a whole) as much as possible. Gillette is interested in firing back at the entity doing the most damage to its market share: right now, that's DSC, not Dorco.
just helped a buddy launch his invention, and through the process learned a lot about patents...for example: you CAN NOT patent a "coated razor"(think of it as trying to patent a PB&J sandwich)...however, your patent would be for HOW the razor is coated or the SYSTEM for a coated razor...not saying gillette doesnt have grounds (because I dont even know what "infringment" they are talking about), but 1)I doubt DSC is that dumb to pick a fight with a giant, and then be that casual about something that would instantly end them...to me this is everything that is wrong with big bussiness (gillette) trying to get around why patent laws were created (to prevent monopolies).
What was the outcome of the case? I tried finding it, and all I can see is that the lawsuit Gillette filed against Dorco in April 2008 was closed the following December. I can't find any disposition or reason for the closing.
I looked for that lawsuit and was able to find only this link. I can't quite remember now where I read it. At this rate, I would like to withdraw my claim on Dorco winning the lawsuit and the lawsuit was not on blade coating. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-suit.1.12418537.html?_r=0
That's the same article I found, but it only details the start of the suit. It has no information on its resolution. Given that the suit terminated eight months after filing, that's too soon for Dorco to have "won" it via a trial, although it is possible they may have won a motion for summary judgment, or prevailed on some procedural grounds. Without more information, we don't know. Still, I think where you were going was the rationale that if Dorco had prevailed in their case, and DSC admits they are simply rebranding Dorco razors, that should defeat Gillette's suit of DSC. However, Gillette is making their allegations based on recent tests of DSC razors. The Dorco suit dates back to 2008, so it would not necessarily be relevant to more recent developments in the production of the allegedly infringing razors. That's not even getting into the thornier issues of how DSC actually proves it is merely a reseller, rather than a manufacturer; that could require a trial, which would be far too costly for DSC, and is no doubt part of Gillette's overall game plan. That's the thing about picking fights with the big boys: sometimes they fight back.
If DSC is making money by selling a product that infringes a patent, they're liable, even if they're not the ones making the product. By your rationale, Amazon could sell MP3s of pirated recordings and claim innocence because they didn't make them. It doesn't work that way. Granted, that's copyright, rather than patent, but it's the same basic concept: if you benefit from the unauthorized use or sale of intellectual property, you have damaged the party that owns that property, and are liable for those damages.
You are absolutely right here. Spokesperson from Gillette did say that recent tests showed that DSC has suddenly (and silently) infringed one of Gillette's patents on blade coating so previous lawsuit may have nothing to do with current issue. At times, I did wonder why Schick/Gillette is not suing Dorco on the matter of Progressive blade geometry. Anyway, if Gillette's hard work on R&D is being violated so blatantly, then yes, they should be sued and made an example out of. This is one of the biggest reasons why I respect USA's legal system; intellectual property infringements are taken seriously and protect one's investment on R&D. I can't be sure but I do feel DSC has done something wrong (or Dorco has without letting DSC know). Every article says that DSC has declined to comment on this issue and I really don't know why DSC so is silent on this matter.
I don't disagree and I'm not carrying water for anyone here, but wouldn't that still make Dorco the main offender? If DSC did not know the product in question was in violation, wouldn't a C&D be more in order while Dorco (hypothetically) bore the legal brunt?
Legally, no. Infringement occurs when a party has made, used, sold, offered to sell, or imported an infringing invention or its equivalent. Therefore, there is no legal distinction between Dorco or DSC as parties infringing on Gillette's patent (assuming the razors are actually infringing). Intent is not an element of direct patent infringement. Therefore, whether or not DSC knew the razors were (allegedly) in violation of the patent is immaterial. If the DSC razors infringe the patent, DSC is liable. You're presupposing Gillette didn't already issue a C&D to DSC as an opening salvo to impending litigation. They may well have, and it may have gone ignored. Either way, Gillette can sue DSC, irrespective of whether or not they also sue Dorco. Getting away from legalities, and looking at it from a more "common sense" perspective of who is really doing Gillette more harm, it still makes sense for Gillette to target DSC over Dorco at this point. By all accounts, DSC is siphoning off more of Gillette's market share than Dorco is. Therefore, in Gillette's eyes, DSC is likely the greater offender, despite the fact Dorco makes the razors. The fact remains the market share DSC is gaining is, to a certain extent, at Gillette's expense. DSC is therefore liable for whatever damages Gillette incurs as a result of the infringement by DSC. Again, this assumes the razors infringe Gillette's patent in the first place. Dorco might also bear some responsibility, since they supply the razors. Gillette could add them as a party, but would seem not to be interested right now. What would really be interesting is if DSC were to sue Dorco, claiming they (DSC) never knew the razors infringed the patent, and therefore Dorco recklessly exposed DSC to liability. That's the thing with litigation like this. It can get really ugly, really quickly. Ultimately all of this would likely work in Gillette's favor.
It's nothing personal against DSC it's just business as Gillette has a long history of aggressively protecting it's real or perceived patient rights. But in the end if DSC did foolishly infringe on the big guy - then they will be disposable.
This is getting into legal minutiae, and is totally hypothetical at this point, but DSC would have at least a couple options. One, they could file a cross-claim against Dorco in the Gillette suit. That's where DSC would add Dorco as a defendant in the patent suit, attempting to make DSC jointly accountable for the patent infringement. Alternatively, DSC could sue Dorco in tort or possibly in replevin (contract) - or both - for harm done to DSC as a result of Dorco's willful infringement of Gillette's patent. That would be an entirely different suit (or suits) outside the scope of the patent suit. There might be other options as well, but I'm not a civil litigation expert. Suffice it to say, a suit by DSC against Dorco is certainly a possibility, although I have no idea how likely. The fact that DSC isn't commenting at this point isn't necessarily a sign of guilt. With so many legal options on the table, it wouldn't make sense just yet for them to comment, since commenting could "marry" them to a course of action they aren't prepared to take yet.
That just means some are made in the US, some are clearly not, I believe the newest Fusion carts are made at the South Boston facility. While that statement does not indicate where any particular blade in our possession was made the package does and mine says Brazil.
