Skull Shaver, LLC v. The Cut Buddy
Infringement action filed 28 Oct 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 26 Mar 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8726528B2USD672504S
- Case no.
- 2:24-cv-10116
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Oct 2024 – 26 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 514 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- The Bald Buddy
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Electric head shaver
An electric shaver includes a housing and a cutter head extending down from the housing. The housing contains the motor and is shaped to provide a grip that includes a pair of concave surfaces on the sides. An additional pair of concave surfaces is formed in the undersurface of the housing that accommodates the backs of the user’s fingers when the cutter head is held for shaving.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 20 May 2014
- Est. expiry
- 13 Jun 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LYLES, JOHN
- Classification
- B26B27/00B26B21/00
- Examiner
- ALIE, GHASSEM
Electric head shaver
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 11 Dec 2012
- Est. expiry
- 11 Dec 2026
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LYLES, JOHN
- Examiner
- RIVARD, JENNIFER
Parties of record
Skull Shaver, LLC
- Core tech
- B26B27/00B26B21/00
- Counsel
- Ahmed M. Soliman
- Firm
- Soliman & Associates PC
The Cut Buddy
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Michael Jay Zinna · Vincent Ferraro
- Firm
- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ahmed M. Soliman | Skull Shaver, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael Jay Zinna | The Cut Buddy | Defendant |
| Vincent Ferraro | The Cut Buddy | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“ORDERED that this matter be transferred to the Middle District of North Carolina.”
Case 2:24-cv-10116 · D.N.J. · closed 26 March 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:24-cv-10116?
2:24-cv-10116 is a patent infringement action brought by Skull Shaver, LLC against The Cut Buddy, filed on 28 Oct 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 26 March 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:24-cv-10116?
US8726528B2 (“Electric head shaver”), assigned to SKULL SHAVER, LLC, currently active; USD672504S (“Electric head shaver”), assigned to SKULL SHAVER, LLC, currently active. The record also lists The Bald Buddy.
How was case 2:24-cv-10116 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “ORDERED that this matter be transferred to the Middle District of North Carolina.”
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 2:24-cv-10116 take?
514 calendar days, from filing on 28 Oct 2024 to closure on 26 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:24-cv-10116?
Ahmed M. Soliman is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Skull Shaver. Michael Jay Zinna and Vincent Ferraro appear for defendant The Cut Buddy.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:24-cv-10116 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.