Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-114/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

Defendants initially included such request in their Motion for Claim Construction and

for Summary Judgment, filed June 15, 2007. In its order construing claims, the Court, by

not identifying which features were “functional,” implicitly denied such request.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., et

al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-0162 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR FURTHER

CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS

A proper claim construction of a design patent consists of a “verbal description” of

the “visual impression” created by the claimed design. See Durling v. Spectrum Furniture

Co., 101 F. 3d 100, 104 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In its order of August 22, 2007, as amended

September 25, 2007, the Court set forth a detailed verbal description of the visual

impression created by the designs claimed in each patent at issue herein.

At the Pretrial Conference, defendants requested that the Court further construe the

claims in the four design patents at issue herein, specifically, to identify which features in

the claimed designs are functional.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds no

further construction is necessary.

“[F]unctional design elements can be claimed in a design patent to the extent that

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 824 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

those functional elements are described in ornamental terms.” See Torspo Hockey Int’l,

Inc. v. Kor Hockey Ltd., 491 F. Supp. 2d 871, 875 (D. Minn. 2007) (citing cases). In

construing a design patent containing one or more “functional” elements, the district court

must verbally describe the “particular ornamental shape” of any such “functional” element. 

See id. at 876.

For example, in considering a patent claiming an ornamental design for a “football

with a tailshaft and fins,” the Federal Circuit observed that “the presence of a tailshaft and

fins” are “functional and thus not protectable as such.” See Oddzon Products, Inc. v. Just

Toys, Inc., 122 F. 3d 1396, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit

affirmed the following construction of the claimed design:

[The patent claims] a ball shaped like a football, with a slender, straight tailshaft

projecting from the rear of the football. In addition, the '001 Patent design has three

fins symmetrically arranged around the tailshaft, each of which has a gentle curve up

and outward which creates a fin with a larger surface area at the end furthest from

the ball. The fins flare outwardly along the entire length of the tailshaft, with the front

end of the fin extending slightly up along the side of the football so that the fins

seemingly protrude from the inside of the football.

See id. at 1400, 1405 (holding district court’s construction “properly limit[ed] the scope of

the patent to its overall ornamental visual impression, rather than to the broader general

design concept of a rocket-like tossing ball”). In short, the Federal Circuit found the district

court had properly construed the “tailshaft and fins” features, both of which were

“functional” features, by describing the visual impression created by the particular shape of

the tailshift and fins claimed by the patentee.

In the instant case, defendants assert that certain features of the claimed

ornamental designs are “functional.” For example, defendants argue the “window”

illustrated in two of the subject patents “provide[s] the path through which light leaves the

LED chip and enters the backlight unit.” (See Defs.’ Mot. for Claim Construction and for

Summ. J. at 25:18-20.) As another example, defendants argue the electrodes illustrated in

each patent “provide a path for electrical current to the LED and a place to solder the LED

onto the BLU frame.” (See id. at 2:24 - 28:1.) The patents, however, do not purport to

claim as a general design concept, and the Court has not construed them to so claim,

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 824 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

either an LED with a window or an LED with electrodes. Consequently, the issue is not one

of functionality but rather whether the subject patents include within their scope features

that convey a particular protectable visual impression, irrespective of whether any such

feature may also perform a function. See Oddzon Products, 122 F. 3d at 1405.

Defendants have cited no case, and the Court has located none, in which the

Federal Circuit has required a district court, for purposes of claim construction, to identify

whether any particular feature of an ornamental design is “functional.” Rather, as explained

above, a district court is required, when construing a claim, to describe the particular “visual

impression” conveyed by the design illustrated in the patent, whether or not such feature

performs a function. See id. Because the Court’s order construing claims so identifies the

ornamental features of each of the asserted patents, the Court finds no further construction

is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 824 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3