Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01040/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01040-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David A. Richardson, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Stanley Works, Inc., a foreign corporation,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-1040-PHX-NVW

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND 

ORDER

This suit concerns the alleged infringement by Defendant The Stanley Works, Inc.

(“Stanley”) of a design patent held by Plaintiff David A. Richardson (“Richardson”). The

parties previously submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on the issues of

infringement and wilfulness. (Doc. ## 30, 46.) Stanley also moved to strike

Richardson’s untimely jury demand. (Doc. # 29.) The Court granted Stanley’s motion on

February 13, 2009. (Doc. # 50.) On February 20, 2009, the parties stipulated to proceed

to trial on the merits of the infringement issue, relying on the briefing and evidence

presented with their cross-motions for summary judgement. Trial of the infringement

issue took place on April 2, 2009. This order states findings of fact and conclusions of

law in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). 

I. Factual Background

Richardson has worked in the field of carpentry for 29 years. He designed a

carpentry tool that combines a conventional hammer with a stud climbing tool and a

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 1 of 9
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 -

crow-bar, calling it the “Stepclaw.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded

Richardson U.S. Design Patent No. D507,167 (“the ‘167 patent”) for the Stepclaw on

July 12, 2005. Figure 1 of the ‘167 is shown below: 

Richardson marketed the Stepclaw as “a hammer that, when needed, can become a handy

step for performing a variety of overhead work. The primary objective of this tool is to

work as a hammer and also as a step to elevate the worker without a ladder . . . .” The

tool accomplishes its step function through a “jaw” that faces opposite the hammer’s

striking surface. A worker can slot the jaw over exposed wood framework and then step

up onto the handle of the tool. The jaw has teeth that “wrap[] around the framework,

[and] hold[] onto wood.” 

After Richardson obtained his patent, Stanley began selling a tool for use in

carpentry, demolition, and construction called the “Fubar.” Stanley sells five versions of

the Fubar. All five versions consist of a jaw with teeth facing opposite a hammer-head

and a crow-bar located on the opposite side of the handle from the hammer and jaw. The

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Stanley U.S. Design Patent No. D562,101 for

one of its Fubar designs. Figure 1 of Stanley’s patent is shown below:

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 2 of 9
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 -

II. Analysis

A. Claim Construction

Design patents protect only “the novel, ornamental features of the patented

design,” not the functional elements. Edson Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396,

1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188 (Fed.

Cir. 1988)). “Where a design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the

scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the

design as shown in the patent.” Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 680

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Edson, 122 F.3d at 1405). 

If a given “configuration is made imperative by the elements which it combines

and by the utilitarian purpose of the device,” that configuration is functional and not

protected by a design patent. Lee, 838 F.2d at 1188 (quoting Applied Arts Corp. v. Grand

Rapids Metalcraft Corp., 67 F.2d 428, 430 (6th Cir. 1933)). If, on the other hand, “there

are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the

article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.” L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom

McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

Other appropriate considerations might include: whether the protected

design represents the best design; whether alternative designs would

adversely affect the utility of the specified article; whether there are any

concomitant utility patents; whether the advertising touts particular features

of the design as having specific utility; and whether there are any elements

in the design or an overall appearance clearly not dictated by function.

Berry Sterling Corp. v. Prescor Plastics Inc., 122 F.3d 1452, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Richardson’s claim is for the ornamental design of a multifunction stud climbing

and carpentry tool, as shown and described in the ‘167 patent. His design incorporates

four primary utilitarian elements: the handle, the hammer-head, the jaw, and the crow-bar. 

The overall configuration of these four elements is dictated by the functional purpose of

the tool and therefore is not protected by his design patent. A designer seeking to

incorporate a hammer-head, jaw, and crow-bar on a single handle will naturally and

inevitably place the jaw and hammer-head together on one end and the crow-bar on the

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 3 of 9
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

- 4 -

other end. To place the jaw and hammer-head on opposite ends of the handle would

distribute the tool’s mass, decreasing the striking force and interfering with the user’s

swing. It would also adversely encumber the crow-bar, which would have to be placed

together with one of the other elements and thus would no longer fit into narrow spaces. 

The prior art illustrates the functional necessity of placing the hammer-head and

jaw at one end of the handle and the crow-bar at the other end. Every piece of prior art

identified by the parties that incorporates similar elements configures them in the exact

same way. (See Doc. # 42, Exs. D & E.) A hammer-head and a jaw or claw are always at

one end of the handle, facing in opposite directions. A crow-bar is always alone at the

opposite end of the handle. The number of other patented designs that use this

configuration and the absence of alternative designs strongly suggest that this

configuration is the best configuration and that it is dictated by functional, not

ornamental, considerations. The ‘167 patent does not protect the configuration of the

handle, hammer-head, jaw, and crow-bar utilized in the Stepclaw.

An astute observer of the prior art will note that the jaw or claw element of the tool

can take many different forms. The proliferation of so many types of jaw or claw designs

opposite the hammer-head suggests that ornamental considerations may play a larger role

in the design of that specific portion of the tools. Nevertheless, the design for the jaw of

Richardson’s Stepclaw was primarily influenced by functional considerations. According

to his marketing, the Stepclaw was designed to function as “a hammer that, when needed,

can become a handy step” by slotting the jaw over exposed wood framework and then

stepping up onto the handle. Therefore, by necessity, the jaw had to consist of two

straight sides that could slot over a wooden board at a right angle to the handle, which

would then serve as the step. That basic, wrench-like design is functional and therefore

not protected by the ‘167 patent.

The ‘167 patent does protect the ornamental aspects of Richardson’s design, which

include, among other things, the standard shape of the hammer-head, the diamond-shaped

flare of the crow-bar and the top of the jaw, the rounded neck, the orientation of the crowCase 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 4 of 9
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

- 5 -

bar relative to the head of the tool, and the plain, undecorated handle. Richardson’s

advertising admits that the teeth of the jaw serve the function of gripping onto wooden

framework. However, the particular number and size of teeth can be altered without

adversely affecting that function and thus Richardson’s choice in those respects can

reasonably be said to be dictated by ornamental considerations. This discussion has

highlighted the most significant ornamental aspects of Richardson’s design. 

B. Infringement

 The sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed is the

ordinary observer test. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678. As articulated by the

Supreme Court,

[i]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser

usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is

such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one

supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.

Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511, 528 (1871). The ordinary observer test is

to be applied “through the eyes of an observer familiar with the prior art.” Egyptian

Goddess, 543 F.3d at 677. Furthermore, in performing the test, “[t]he trial court is correct

to factor out the functional aspects of various design elements, but that discounting of

functional elements must not convert the overall infringement test to an element-byelement comparison.” Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1372

(Fed. Cir. 2006). Rather, “it is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling

in determining infringement.” Edson, 122 F.3d at 1405. If the “patented design as a

whole is substantially similar in appearance to the accused design,” there is infringement. 

Id.

For example, in Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188 (Fed. Cir.

1988), the plaintiff argued that his patent covered a “massage device wherein an

elongated handle has two opposing balls at one end, and that the patent is perforce

infringed by a massage device with that general configuration.” The court rejected that

argument, explaining that “by obtaining a design patent, not a utility patent, Mr. Lee

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 5 of 9
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

 Although Stanley’s jaw design is structurally similar to Richardson’s, it is not an

exact copy. For example, in Stanley’s design, the top side of the jaw is longer than the

- 6 -

limited his patent protection to the ornamental design of the article.” Id. The ornamental

elements of the design included “the wooden balls, their polished finish and appearance,

the proportions, [and] the carving on the handle,” but not the overall configuration of an

elongated handle with two opposing balls at one end. Id. “A device that copies the

utilitarian or functional features of a patented design is not an infringement unless the

ornamental aspects are also copied, such that the overall ‘resemblance is such as to

deceive.’” Id. (citing Gorham, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) at 528). Because the accused design

copied only the functional configuration of elements and not the ornamental aspects of

the protected design, the court held that no infringement had occurred. 

As in Lee, the similarity between Richardson’s and Stanley’s design is limited to

the overall configuration of functional elements: an opposing hammer and jaw at one end

of the handle and a crow-bar at the other. That configuration is functional and ubiquitous

in the prior art. Looking carefully at the jaw, Stanley’s design does resemble

Richardson’s design more closely than any other tool in the prior art. In both

Richardson’s and Stanley’s designs, the jaw consists of two straight sides oriented at a

right angle to the handle, much like an oversized wrench. Such a design is similar to

three pieces of prior art identified by the parties: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,850,650; Des.

291,401; and Des. 300,111. However, none of the prior art designs are as similar to

Richardson’s design as is Stanley’s. 

Nonetheless, it has already been concluded that such a design was influenced by

primarily functional considerations. Since functional necessity dictates the overall

configuration of the hammer, jaw, handle, and crow-bar, Richardson had to design the

jaw the way he did to fulfill one of the tool’s “primary objectives,” namely to function as

“a step to elevate the worker without a ladder.” Stanley’s tool uses a similar jaw design

to achieve a demolition function.1

 The user can slot the jaw over exposed wooden

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 6 of 9
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 bottom. In Richardson’s, both sides of the jaw are the same length.

- 7 -

framework and rip it out of position. Stanley’s design would work better for such a

function than any of the three noted pieces of prior art. The basic jaw design used by

Richardson and Stanley, which is two straight sides oriented at a right angle to the handle,

is primarily functional. The ‘167 patent does not give Richardson a monopoly on that

basic, wrench-like design for a jaw and therefore Stanley’s use of that design does not

weigh in favor of a finding of infringement.

There is little similarity between the ornamental features of Richardson’s and

Stanley’s designs. To name just a few such features, Richardson’s design incorporates a

standard shaped hammer-head, a diamond-shaped flare near the crow-bar and the top of

the jaw, teeth only on the bottom side of the jaw, a rounded neck, a crow-bar that faces

the same direction as the hammer-head, and a plain, undecorated handle. None of the five

versions of the Fubar copies any of these elements. They all have a tapered hammerhead, a streamlined crow-bar and top of the jaw, teeth on both sides of the jaw, a more

triangular neck, a crow-bar oriented at a right angle to the hammer-head, and an

embellished handle. Although this is not a comprehensive list of the ornamental aspects

of either design, these are the areas of greatest departure. Taken altogether, the

ornamental differences between the two tools are substantial. From the perspective of an

ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, the overall visual effect of the Fubar is

significantly different from the Stepclaw. An ordinary observer would not be deceived

into thinking any of the Fubar designs are Richardson’s Stepclaw.

Richardson argues that because “it is the appearance of a design as a whole which

is controlling in determining infringement,” Edson, 122 F.3d at 1405, the functional

elements of his design must be included when comparing it with the Fubar. Richardson’s

argument distorts functionality beyond all recognition. In performing the ordinary

observer test, “[t]he trial court is correct to factor out the functional aspects of various

design elements.” Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1372

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 7 of 9
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

- 8 -

(Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Edson, 122 F.3d at 1405 (“The patentee ‘must establish that an

ordinary person would be deceived by reason of the common features in the claimed and

accused designs which are ornamental.’”) (quoting Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d

816, 825 (Fed. Cir. 1992)) (emphasis supplied); Lee, 838 F.2d at 1186 (“Thus it is the

non-functional, design aspects that are pertinent to determinations of infringement.”). In

discounting the functional elements, the trial court simply “must not convert the overall

infringement test to an element-by-element comparison.” Amini, 439 F.3d at 1372; see

also id. at 1371 (“[D]eception that arises is a result of similarities in the overall design,

not of similarities in ornamental features considered in isolation.”) (emphasis supplied).

Richardson heavily relies upon L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d

1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993), to argue that the functional elements of his design should be

included in the infringement analysis. There, the court rejected a defendant’s argument

that since each element of a shoe design served a specific utilitarian purpose the design of

the shoe was functional and the design patent consequently invalid. It noted that simply

because each element of a design performs a function “does not mean that the specific

design of each element, and the combination of these elements into the patented design, is

dictated by primarily functional considerations.” Id. at 1123. Rather, because there were

“other ways of designing athletic shoes to perform the functions of the elements of the

[patented shoe design],” the design as a whole was not primarily functional but rather

ornamental. 

Unlike the shoe design in L.A. Gear, functional necessity dictated the basic

configuration of the Stepclaw’s hammer-head, jaw, crow-bar, and handle. Because that

configuration “is essential to the use of the article, it can not be the subject of a design

patent,” and Richardson cannot rely on the perception of similarity between the Fubar and

the Stepclaw that arises from it. Id. After discounting the functional aspects of

Richardson’s design, an ordinary observer of the Fubar would not be deceived because

the ornamental differences between it and the Stepclaw are, taken altogether, too

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 -

substantial. The overall visual effect of the Fubar is not substantially similar to the

Stepclaw, so the ‘167 patent has not been infringed.

Stanley is entitled to judgment against Richardson because the ‘167 patent has not

been infringed. Since there is no infringement, Stanley’s motion for summary judgment

on the issue of wilful infringement is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment against Plaintiff

and in favor of Defendant and that Plaintiff take nothing. The Clerk shall terminate this

action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

on willful infringement (doc. # 46) is denied as moot.

DATED this 6th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01040-NVW Document 55 Filed 04/06/09 Page 9 of 9