Gillette, Schick end legal war, but battle in market rages on
Suits centered on shaving patents, advertising claims
Capping a lengthy legal battle over shaving superiority, Gillette and the makers of Schick signed a settlement that would resolve most of their patent and advertising lawsuits just weeks before the razor rivals were set to go to court.
The companies yesterday declined to provide details on the agreement, except that it was signed out of court last week and covers Gillette's numerous patent lawsuits involving the Schick Quattro razor and Schick's false advertising claims against Gillette.
''Both companies have resolved the vast majority of litigation between them," said Eric Kraus, a Gillette spokesman. ''While Gillette and Schick will remain competitors, we'll compete in the marketplace, not in the courtroom."
Jacqueline Burwitz, a spokeswoman for Energizer Holdings Inc. of St. Louis, Schick's owner, declined to comment.
The litigation began in August 2003, as Schick planned to one-up Gillette's three-bladed razor with its four-bladed Schick Quattro. Gillette filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Boston, claiming Schick deliberately violated a patent on ''progressive blade geometry" for its Mach3 system, a patent that protected the angle and alignment of the Mach3's blades so they ''extend gradually closer to the beard, allowing for the closest most comfortable shave in a single stroke," Gillette said at the time.
Two months later, Schick fired back, accusing Gillette of false advertising for pitching its razors as ''The Best a Man Can Get." That three-count federal lawsuit in Connecticut claimed Gillette used intentionally misleading slogans and its actions ''are offensive to the public," according to the lawsuit.
The legal battle escalated over the next two-and-a-half years, with disputes over everything from diamond-coated razor patents to false advertising claims about whether micro-pulses stimulate facial hairs up and away from the skin.
''These two companies have gone head to head for a long time," said Patrick Schumann, an analyst with Edward Jones. ''Neither wanted to give up ground, particularly when it comes to innovative new products."
Still, Schumann said a settlement was probably reached because it was a distraction for both sides and competing in the marketplace as opposed to the courts seems to be a better, less costly proposition. Gillette dominates the blades and razors industry, with more than 70 percent of the global market, while Schick, of Milford, Conn., has a 20 percent share, according to analysts and company officials.
Moreover, the recent sale of Gillette to Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble Co. created such a strong consumer products conglomerate that the combined company probably has to worry less about competition eating into sales, Schumann said. P&G, he added, likely wanted to focus on the launch of Gillette's new five-blade razor, Fusion.
Tom Banks, managing partner at intellectual property law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP in Cambridge, said damages for patent cases involving consumer products could reach into the hundreds of millions and that many patent cases will settle close to trial.
''The risk is there that you might have a runaway jury, and if you don't want to risk losing, you keep it from going to the jury," Banks said.
Jenn Abelson can be reached at abelson@globe.com. 