Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CALPHALON CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-05-971 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

MEYER CORPORATION, U.S.,

Defendant.

 

MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., and 

MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES 

LIMITED,

Counterclaimants,

v.

CALPHALON CORPORATION,

Counterdefendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Calphalon Corporation brought suit against

defendant Meyer Corporation based on allegations of infringement

of U.S. Patent No. D482,568 (hereinafter “the ‘568 patent”), a

design patent for a cookware handle. (Compl.) On August 21,

2006, this court held a claim construction hearing to construe

the disputed terms of the ‘568 patent pursuant to Markman v.

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Having

carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, heard the parties’

arguments, and considered the relevant legal authority, the court

issues the following claim construction order.

I. Discussion

This case is set for jury trial on September 12, 2006.

Before a jury can decide whether the patent at issue was

infringed, however, the court must first construe the relevant

patent claims. OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d

1396, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Whether a design patent is

infringed is determined by first construing the claim to the

design . . . .” (citation omitted)). 

Unlike claim construction of utility patents, “in the

design patent context, . . . the judge’s explanation of the

design is more complicated because it involves an additional

level of abstraction not required when comprehending the matter

claimed in a utility patent.” Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co.,

Inc., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that a district

court’s vague description of the concept of a design patent

provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to “discern

the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its

decision”). The court’s task in construing the claim of a design

patent is to verbally describe the depictions of the invention in

the design patent in a manner that should “evoke a visual image

consonant with the claimed design.” Id. at 104.

“Design patents have almost no scope. . . . [I]n all

design cases, [the claim] is limited to what is shown in the

application drawings.” In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed.

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Cir. 1988). Significantly, the court must construe and identify

only the non-functional aspects of the design. OddzOn Prods.,

122 F.3d at 1405 (explaining that the exercise of claim

construction “limits the scope of the patent to its overall

ornamental visual impression” and not its functional elements).

A functional aspect of a design is one that is dictated by the

way the object is to be used; it cannot be claimed as a design

innovation because it is the only and essential way that the

object could be designed. L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.,

988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“A design patent is

directed to the appearance of an article of manufacture. An

article of manufacture necessarily serves a utilitarian purpose,

and the design of a useful article is deemed to be functional

when the appearance of the claimed design is ‘dictated by’ the

use or purpose of the article.”).

The ‘568 patent, which is at issue here and is appended

to this order as Exhibit A, contains only one claim: “[t]he

ornamental design for a cookware handle, as shown and described”,

and additionally includes nine drawings depicting the invention

from various perspectives. The claimed ornamental design is

shown by solid line drawings, and the broken lines included in

the drawings are not part of the claimed design.

II. Claim Construction

Based on the applicable legal standard and the

depictions of the invention in the ‘568 patent, the court

construes the ‘568 patent as follows:

The handle claimed by the ‘568 patent extends from the

end of the pan in a serpentine or gently-curved fashion in the

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 3 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The brand name “Calphalon” and the rivet holes on the 1

handle are depicted with broken lines, which indicates that they

are not part of the claimed invention.

Relatedly, the patent does not indicate what material

the handle is made out of or whether the two segments are made

from the same material. Defendant argues that because the

shading on the two segments is the same, the drawings indicate

that the two segments appear to be fashioned from the same

material. Plaintiff counters that the material should not be

considered here because “[w]here the material, size, or color are

not shown in a design patent, those features are not claimed and

cannot be assessed as part of the infringement analysis.” (Pl.’s

Reply 5.)

The drawings in the ‘568 patent include lines on both

segments of the handle that help suggest the contours and curves

of the handle, particularly on the cylindrical segment. See

Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 608.02(V) (2005) (“Shading

is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical,

cylindrical, and conical elements of an object.” (emphasis

added)). Additionally, the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure

specifies how a patentee can indicate that a special surface

treatment is used on an invention, and there is no indication

that any sort of special surface treatment was used on both

segments of the handle here. See id. § 1503.02(IV) (“Surface

treatment may either be disclosed with the article to which it is

applied or in which it is embodied and must be shown in full

lines or in broken lines (if unclaimed) to meet the statutory

requirement.”). Therefore, the patent does not specify a

particular material that must be used in an infringing handle. 

The shape of the handle where it attaches to the pan is

2

purely functional, according to both parties’ experts. (See

Woodring Dep. 14:3-7; Visser Decl. ¶ 6.) Therefore, its shape

need not be construed by the court or described herein.

4

shape of a shallowly-drawn “S”. The handle is in two segments,

circumscribed by a line located approximately 3/8 of the total

length from the place where the handle attaches to the pan. 

1

The first segment (the one that begins adjacent to the

pan) is generally shaped like an “A”. It is relatively wide at

its start, bulges out slightly at the beginning of the legs of

2

the “A”, and then becomes increasingly narrower until it reaches

the end of the segment. At the end of the segment, the “A” has a

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 4 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The holes are functional in that they serve the purpose

3

of dissipating heat, but the position and shape of the holes is

not “dictated by” this function. Therefore, the court construes

the shape and position of the holes in describing the overall

appearance of the design.

Defendant argues that the cored-out nature of the

4

underside of the first segment is functional. However,

defendant’s own expert simply testified that the “underside under

the forward portion of the handle is cored out to reduce material

usage and cost of manufacture, and directly impacts the structure

of the piece.” (Visser Decl. ¶ 9.) Unlike other features of the

invention, defendant’s inventor did not describe this feature as

“functional”. (Compare Visser Decl. ¶ 9, with id. ¶ 8.) 

Plaintiff’s expert explains that the cored-out material

is not claimed by the patent, by virtue of the fact that it is

not present, and that the material could have been removed in a

number of different ways, but the decision to carve the material

out from the bottom was an aesthetic choice. (Woodring Dep.

126:16-22.) 

These arguments unnecessarily complicate the issue.

The shape of the handle is affected by the choice to core out the

underside of the “A”, and it would not be an accurate description

of the aesthetic shape of the handle to fail to mention that the

underside is “cored-out”. Therefore, the court construes the

handle by explaining that its shape only includes the outer

outline of the “A” on the underside because of the hollowed-out

portion.

5

flat (and not pointed) top. This first segment contains a hole3

between the legs and bridge of the “A” that is approximately in

the shape of a half moon (the portion of the half moon nearest

the pan is gently concave, making the shape resemble that of a

fat crescent moon) close to the place where it joins the pan. 

The second half of the first segment contains another, smaller

hole which creates the triangle of the “A” and is approximately

in the shape of a bell. Additionally, because the bottom of this

segment is hollowed out, the only material on the underside of

the first segment is the outermost edge of the “A”.4

The second segment is generally shaped as a cylinder

but becomes slightly rounder and thicker towards the end. It

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 5 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As with the other holes on the handle, this hole is not

5

part of the patent claim by virtue of its presence on the handle

(it clearly has a functional purpose–-it allows the pan to be

hung from a hook). However, the functional purpose does not

require a certain shape for the hole, and it is therefore an

element of the design patent that the court must construe. 

Plaintiff contends that the hanging hole is not a novel

invention, because most other cookware handles have holes of

various shapes and sizes, and the court does not have to construe

it for that reason. However, this hanging hole is at an unusual

angle and has a somewhat unusual shape. Despite citing a vague

claim made by its expert about prior art, plaintiff has not shown

that the shape of this hole is not novel and not part of the

claimed invention. Therefore, the court construes the shape of

the hole as part of the design.

6

also contains a hole near the end of the handle that is 5

approximately in the shape of a football with rounded edges, or a

ellipse with a flattened top. This hole is arranged such that

the longer diameter of the ellipse is perpendicular to the

orientation of the handle. The hole cuts through the handle at

an angle, and the edge of the handle terminates at a similar

angle, which is not at a right angle to the top surface of the

handle.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 23, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 6 of 13
EXHIBIT A

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 119 Filed 08/25/06 Page 13 of 13