Ryford H. Estores, et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, No. 25-cv-06151, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2025) (Wood, J.).

Judge Wood denied plaintiffs’ amended motion for temporary restraining order in this design patent infringement case involving a foldable three-way mirror.

The Court held that plaintiffs misconceived their design patent’s scope by focusing on functional rather than ornamental features. While plaintiffs argued their patent claimed a foldable mirror, comprising multiple mirrors connected foldably connected side-by-side with a rear-mounted hook, the Court noted each element served functional purposes for a self-haircut tool.

Applying Federal Circuit precedent, the Court emphasized that design patents protect only ornamental, non-functional elements. General, conceptual similarity of a tri-fold mirror with hooked arms was insufficient for infringement. The analysis must focus on the design’s “overall ornamental visual impression.”

In detailed product-by-product comparisons, the Court found the accused products were plainly dissimilar. Key differences included:

  • Accused products’ arms retracted into concealed plastic panels versus the patent’s protruding tube design
  • Flat versus protruding back surfaces
  • Thicker center panels on accused products versus uniform panel thickness in the patent

The Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument to focus primarily on the mirror side, noting the patent figures emphasized the rear design elements. With multiple trifold mirrors in the prior art, plaintiffs failed to identify distinguishing ornamental features of the mirror portion.

Additionally, the Court found plaintiffs’ perfunctory trademark and trade dress claims lacked evidentiary support, with no proof defendants used the “Self-Cut System” mark or evidence of secondary meaning for trade dress.

The existence of substantial questions concerning infringement precluded granting a TRO. The Court also flagged potential improper joinder issues under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a) given variations among accused products.