Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01370/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01370-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Covidien LP
Appellee
Covidien, Inc.
Appellee
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
Appellant
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., 

ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

COVIDIEN, INC., COVIDIEN LP,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1370

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio in No. 1:11-cv-00871-TSB, 

Judge Timothy S. Black.

______________________ 

Decided: August 7, 2015

______________________ 

WILLIAM F. CAVANAUGH, Jr., Patterson Belknap Webb 

& Tyler LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiffsappellants. Also represented by CHAD J. PETERMAN,

JEREMY A. WEINBERG, R. JAMES MADIGAN III, HELEN P.

O’REILLY. 

DREW MILLER WINTRINGHAM III, DLA Piper US LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. Also 

represented by FRANCIS W. RYAN IV, MATTHEW GANAS,

MELISSA REINCKENS; STANLEY JOSEPH PANIKOWSKI III,

San Diego, CA.

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/07/2015
2 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiffs-appellants Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. and 

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC (collectively, Ethicon) sued 

defendants-appellees Covidien, Inc. and Covidien LP 

(collectively, Covidien) in the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio for alleged infringement of 

several utility and design patents related to ultrasonic 

surgical devices. After the close of discovery, the district 

court granted Covidien’s motions for summary judgment, 

concluding that 1) U.S. Patent No. 8,182,501 (the ’501 

patent) is invalid as indefinite, 2) U.S. Patent No. 

5,989,275 (the ’275 patent) is not infringed by Covidien’s 

accused products, and 3) U.S. Patent Nos. D661,801 (the 

D’801 patent), D661,802 (the D’802 patent), D661,803 (the 

D’803 patent), and D661,804 (the D’804 patent) (collectively, the Design Patents) are invalid as functional and 

in the alternative, not infringed. The district court entered final judgment in favor of Covidien, and Ethicon

now appeals. 

We reverse and vacate in part. As to the ’501 patent, 

we reverse the district court’s grant of invalidity for 

indefiniteness, because the specification provides sufficient guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to 

the scope of its asserted claims. As to the ’275 patent, we 

vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment of 

noninfringement because the district court improperly 

resolved genuine disputes of material fact in favor of 

Covidien instead of Ethicon, the non-moving party, and 

questions of fact remain as to whether Covidien’s accused 

ultrasonic devices infringe the asserted claims of the ’275 

patent.

As for the Design Patents, we reverse the district 

court’s grant of invalidity based on functionality. The 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 3

district court evaluated the claimed designs using too 

high a level of abstraction, focusing on the unclaimed 

utilitarian aspects of the underlying article instead of the 

claimed ornamental designs of that underlying article. 

We affirm, however, the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment of noninfringement of the Design Patents. 

After the functional aspects of the claimed designs are

properly excluded from the infringement analysis, the 

claimed ornamental designs are plainly dissimilar from

the ornamental design of Covidien’s accused products. 

Based on the foregoing, we remand to the district court to 

resolve Ethicon’s allegations that Covidien’s accused 

devices infringe the asserted claims of the ’501 and ’275 

patents.

I. BACKGROUND

The patents-in-suit are directed to surgical instruments that use ultrasonic energy created by blades vibrating at high frequencies to cut tissue and blood vessels. 

These surgical instruments also use the heat generated 

from the friction of the blade vibrating against the blood 

vessel to coagulate and seal those blood vessels in order to 

prevent bleeding. Ethicon develops, manufactures, and 

sells such ultrasonic surgical instruments. After Covidien 

launched a competing line of ultrasonic surgical equipment, Ethicon sued Covidien, alleging infringement of the

utility and design patents at issue in this appeal, among 

others. Both parties waived their rights to a jury trial

and agreed to a bench trial on all disputed issues. After 

Markman proceedings and the close of discovery, Covidien 

successfully moved for summary judgment of invalidity 

and/or noninfringement of the asserted patent claims. 

See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., No. 11-

cv-871, ECF Nos. 130–32 (S.D. Oh. Jan 22, 2014) (Ethicon 

DCt). The district court entered a stipulated final judgment of noninfringement and/or invalidity of all patentsin-suit in favor of Covidien. Ethicon timely appealed, and 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/07/2015
4 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

we have jurisdiction over Ethicon’s appeal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

We review the grant of summary judgment under the 

law of the regional circuit. Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate 

Techs., Inc., 641 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The 

Sixth Circuit reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo. Savage v. Gee, 665 F.3d 732, 737 (6th Cir. 

2012).

A. The ’501 patent

The ’501 patent is directed to ultrasonic surgical 

shears for cutting and sealing a blood vessel. ’501 patent, 

1:20–23. The claimed device includes an ultrasonic 

surgical blade, a clamping arm, and a tissue pad attached 

to the clamping arm. Id. at 2:7–10. The clamping arm 

opens and closes towards the ultrasonic blade in a manner similar to the two blades of a pair of scissors. Id. at

2:8–9. During use, a blood vessel is positioned between 

the blade and the tissue pad on the clamping arm. Id. at 

1:67–2:2. When the blade and clamping arm are in a 

“closed position,” the average clamping pressure on the 

blood vessel is between 60 and 210 pounds per square 

inch (psi). Id. at 2:2–4. The ultrasonic blade then vibrates at a high frequency. Id. at 2:4–5. The combination 

of this ultrasonically-vibrating blade and clamping pressure on the blood vessel results in the bringing together 

the walls of the blood vessel (a “coaptation”), the cutting 

of the coaptated blood vessel (a “transection”), and the 

sealing of the coaptated cut ends of the blood vessel (a 

“coagulation”). Id. at 1:40–46. According to the ’501 

patent, the 60 to 210 psi average clamping pressure range 

provides improved blood vessel sealing with shorter 

transection times on smaller blood vessels and blood 

vessel sealing with acceptable transection times on larger 

blood vessels, a result which was not conventionally 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 5

achievable. Id. at 2:25–31. Claim 17 is representative, 

and recites as follows:

17. An ultrasonic surgical shears comprising:

a) an ultrasonic surgical blade;

b) a clamping arm operable to open and close toward the blade;

c) a tissue pad attached to the clamping arm, 

wherein the blade and tissue pad define a clamping surface area so that the applied clamp force 

does not exceed a clamping pressure of 210 psi at 

the clamping surface area; and

d) means for limiting a user applied clamping 

force on the clamping arm creating an average 

predetermined clamping pressure between and including 60 psi and 210 psi on tissue disposed between the tissue pad and the blade.

Id. at 7:15–27 (emphases added). 

Each asserted claim of the ’501 patent includes at 

least one limitation that requires clamping pressure 

values similar to those recited in claim 17. Ethicon DCt, 

ECF No. 131 at 49. The asserted claims recite either an 

“average” clamping/coaptation pressure (e.g., claims 1 and 

17) or simply a “clamping pressure” (e.g., claims 12, 22, 

and 23). We understand the ’501 patent’s specification to 

use “clamping pressure” interchangeably with “average” 

clamping/coaptation pressure. For example, in describing 

the “method of the invention” as illustrated in Figure 1, 

the specification describes the “exert coaptation pressure” 

step (element 14) as the exertion of “an average coaptation pressure on the blood vessel between and including 

60 psi and 210 psi.” Id. at 3:27–41. The “Summary of the 

Invention” also describes the “method of the invention” as 

the exertion of “an average coaptation pressure on the 

blood vessel between and including 60 psi and 210 psi.” 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/07/2015
6 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

Id. at 2:1–4, 2:10–13, 2:18–22. The remainder of the 

specification then refers interchangeably to this key 60 

psi to 210 psi range as either the “average coaptation 

pressure,” the clamping/coaptation pressure, or simply 

“the pressure.” Compare id. at 3:38–41 (“average coaptation pressure”), with id. at 5:4–8 (“clamping pressure”), id.

at 5:41–52 (“coaptation pressure”), and id. at 4:17–27 

(“the pressure”). Thus, we understand the ’501 patent’s 

claims to reference average clamping/coaptation pressures, regardless of whether or not the word “average” is 

expressly recited by the claims. 

The district court found the asserted claims of the 

’501 patent to be invalid as indefinite, finding that nothing in the specification or understanding in the art specified “a method of measurement, the location of 

measurement, and the type and amount of tissue used for 

the measurement of clamping force[s] and clamping 

pressure[s]” recited by the claims. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 

131 at 56. The district court was troubled by the fact that 

“measuring at different locations along the clamp arm 

provide[d] different force and pressure values” and “when 

the clamp arm [wa]s fully engaged with tissue, the tissue 

c[ould] be thin or thick, stiff or compressible, and depending on the type of tissue, the measurement of the clamping force and pressure w[ould] differ.” Id. at 56–57. 

Ethicon contends that the district court ignored much 

of Ethicon’s proffered evidence and instead improperly 

resolved disputed issues of fact in favor of the movant, 

Covidien. Ethicon argues that a skilled artisan reading 

the specification would understand that the clamping 

force measurements recited in the claims must be made 

when the clamping arm and blade are in a closed position, 

and in a manner that reflects the average pressure applied by the clamping arm on the clamping surface area, 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 7

which can be measured at the midpoint of the recited 

clamping surface area—the midpoint of the tissue pad.1 

We review the district court’s indefiniteness determination de novo. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 

F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A claim is invalid for 

indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 22 if its language, 

when read in light of the specification and prosecution 

history, fails to inform skilled artisans about the scope of 

the invention with reasonable certainty. Nautilus, Inc. v. 

Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).

Claim 17 of the ’501 patent recites that the claimed 

ultrasonic surgical shears include a tissue pad and blade 

1 At oral argument, Ethicon explained that unlike 

figures 2–5 of the ’501 patent, the tissue pads of Ethicon’s 

ultrasonic shears and Covidien’s accused ultrasonic 

shears extend along their entire respective clamping 

arms. In other words, the midpoint of the tissue pad is at 

substantially the same position as the midpoint of the 

clamping arm. Oral Argument at 11:10–16:20, Ethicon 

Endo-Surgery v. Covidien, Inc., No. 2014-1370 (Fed. Cir. 

Mar. 6, 2015), available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/

oral-argument-recordings/14-1370/all. Covidien confirmed Ethicon’s understanding. Id. at 21:00–22:10. 

Thus, we interpret the parties’ references in their briefs to 

the midpoint of the recited clamping surface area as 

referring to the midpoint of the clamping arm as it applies 

to the commercial products at issue and the midpoint of 

the tissue pad as it applies to the claims of the ’501 patent. See, e.g., ’501 patent, Fig. 2.

2 Paragraph 2 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with 

newly designated § 112(b) when § 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29 (AIA), took effect 

on September 16, 2012. Because the application resulting 

in the patent was filed before that date, we will refer to 

the pre-AIA version of § 112.

 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/07/2015
8 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

that define a clamping surface area. ’501 patent, 7:20–21. 

The specification explains that this “clamping surface 

area is the area where the blade and the tissue pad are in 

close proximity because the clamping arm is in a closed 

position.” Id. at 4:25–27, 1:36–38. In the primary disclosed embodiment, the clamping surface area is about 

0.033 square inches. Id. at 4:14–15. The user operates 

the claimed shears to exert a clamping force of between 

two and seven pounds in order to close the clamping arm 

towards the blade. Id. at 4:15–17. Thus, the clamping 

force on the clamping surface area—defined by the tissue

pad and the blade—averages between two and seven 

pounds over 0.033 square inches, or between approximately 60 to 210 pounds per square inch. See id. at 5:41–

45; see also id. at 4:61–65.

The clamping force applied to close the clamping arm 

towards the blade results in the exertion of a clamping 

pressure on a blood vessel disposed between the tissue 

pad attached to the clamping arm and the blade. Id. at 

4:31–37, 3:38–41. See also id. at 4:38–57. The specification makes clear that this clamping or coaptation pressure on the blood vessel is an average pressure. Id. at 

Abstract; id. at Summary of the Invention, 2:1–4, 2:10–13, 

2:18–22. The specification also makes clear that “[t]he 

pressures discussed [in the ’501 patent] are pressures 

seen by tissue when the entire clamping surface area is in 

contact with the tissue.” Id. at 4:23–25. To ensure that 

no more than 210 psi of pressure is exerted at the clamping surface area, the claimed shears include means for 

limiting the clamping force applied by the user on the 

clamping arm. Id. at 7:22–27. Thus, the claimed shears 

limit the average predetermined clamping pressure on 

tissue between the tissue pad and the blade—the clamping surface area—to between 60 and 210 psi. Id. at 5:4–

12. 

As the claims and specification indicate, the userapplied clamping force on the clamping arm is translated 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 9

to pressure applied by the clamping arm and blade to the 

tissue. See, e.g., id. at 7:22–23 (“[T]he applied clamp force 

does not exceed a clamping pressure of 210 psi at the 

clamping surface area.”); id. at 2:10–13 (“[E]xerting a 

clamping force on the clamping arm creat[es] an average 

clamping pressure between and including 60 psi and 210 

psi on tissue positioned between the tissue pad and the 

blade.”). And the specification is clear that the recited 

“clamping pressure” is an average pressure that should be 

measured when the clamping arm and the blade are in a 

closed position and exerting pressure on a blood vessel 

disposed between them. See, e.g., id. at 2:1–4, 4:23–27.

Ethicon’s expert explained that as a matter of physics, 

pressure measured by pounds per square inch is calculated by taking a force measurement at a point and dividing 

that force by the area. Joint Appendix (J.A.) 4356 ¶ 102. 

Translated to the claims of the ’501 patent, a skilled 

artisan would know that the recited average clamping 

pressures can be determined by measuring the average 

clamping force on the clamping surface area and dividing 

that average force by the clamping surface area. See J.A. 

4427 ¶ 247. And in the case of a simple lever, such as the 

clamping arm of the claimed ultrasonic shears, measured 

force has a generally linear mathematical relationship 

with distance along the lever arm, and the midpoint of the 

lever arm is representative of the average force along the 

arm. Id.; see also J.A. 4366 (“[T]he force varies linearly 

along the length [of the clamping arm] . . . [and] the 

midpoint represents the average along the clamping 

surface.”). Thus, Ethicon’s expert concluded that a person 

of ordinary skill in the art would understand that measuring the average clamping pressure as recited by the 

claims can be accomplished by measuring the clamping 

force applied by the clamping arm at the midpoint of the 

clamping surface area when the clamping arm is in a 

closed position—the midpoint of the tissue pad (and the 

midpoint of the clamping arm for Ethicon and Covidien’s 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/07/2015
10 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

commercial ultrasonic devices). J.A. 4431 ¶ 261. Ethicon’s expert also conducted tests of Covidien’s accused 

device to illustrate his explanation of the link between 

average pressures and the midpoint of the clamping 

surface area, which demonstrated, inter alia, the general 

linearity of clamping force along the clamping arm, and 

how force measurements at the midpoint of the clamping 

arm approximated the average of two force measurements 

taken at proximal and distal locations 1/3 and 2/3 of the 

way along the clamping arm. Id. at 4366, 4370. 

Covidien offers nothing to contest this explanation of 

the underlying physics- and mathematics-based link 

between the average pressure and the midpoint of the 

clamping arm provided by Ethicon’s expert. Thus, unrebutted testimony in the record demonstrates that the

focus of the ’501 patent’s specification and claims on 

average clamping/coaptation pressures is sufficient to 

signal to a skilled artisan how to arrive at the claimed 

force and pressure measurements. Relying on basic 

concepts of physics and mathematics, skilled artisans 

would understand that the average clamping/coaptation 

pressures recited in the ’501 patent’s claims can be determined by measuring clamping force at the midpoint of 

the clamping surface area—which for the ultrasonic 

shears at issue here is at the midpoint of both the tissue 

pad and clamping arm. 

The district court appeared to ignore this intrinsic evidence and the testimony in the record. It expressed 

concern that the claims did not specifically “refer to any 

particular point” on the clamping surface area at which to 

take the recited pressure measurements or “identify a 

location at which [the clamping force] is to be measured.” 

Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 131, at 50–51. The district court 

also expressed concern that there was no industry standard method for measuring clamping forces. Id. at 49. 

Indeed, the district court appears to have believed that in 

order for the claims of the ’501 patent to satisfy the defiCase: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 10 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 11

niteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, the intrinsic 

evidence needed to identify a specific method one of 

ordinary skill in the art would use to measure the recited 

clamping/coaptation pressures. Id. at 55. See also id. at 

48, 50 (same). 

But in the context of the dispute here, the definiteness 

requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 mandates only that one 

skilled in the art must be able to understand which

pressures are relevant to the claims and how those pressures can be measured, so to discern the scope of the 

claimed average pressure range with reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, 120 S. Ct. at 2124. If such an understanding of how to measure the claimed average 

pressures was within the scope of knowledge possessed by 

one of ordinary skill in the art, there is no requirement for 

the specification to identify a particular measurement 

technique. As discussed above, evidence in the record 

demonstrates that because the specification and claims of 

the ’501 patent focused on average clamping and coaptation pressures, a skilled artisan would have possessed 

such an understanding and such knowledge. See J.A. 

4427 ¶ 247; 4356 ¶ 102.

Instead of focusing on what a skilled artisan would 

have understood about the claimed average pressures 

based on the disclosure in the ’501 patent, the district 

court focused on how Ethicon tested its own commercial 

embodiment of the claimed ultrasonic shears. In doing so, 

the district court was troubled that Ethicon used four 

different methods to measure clamping force, and that 

each of these methods appeared to yield different force 

measurements. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 131, at 13. It 

found this to create ambiguity in the claims because 

“different methods of measuring clamping force and 

pressure result[ed] in different numeric values.” Id. at 49. 

The district court, however, appears to have based its 

conclusions on mischaracterized testimony, and as a 

result, arrived at several clearly erroneous factual concluCase: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 11 Filed: 08/07/2015
12 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

sions. Although Ethicon’s witnesses testified that Ethicon 

used different techniques to measure clamping force, the 

district court ignored testimony that each of these methods was designed to provide the same clamping force 

measurement. J.A. 2685–86 (“[All four methods of measurement are] trying to achieve the same result, which is 

the force it takes to just bring the clamp arm off the 

blade”). And while the actual tested clamping force 

measurements may have varied slightly between these 

methods, this was simply due to natural variances in realworld testing conditions. Ethicon’s witness explained that 

“[i]f you took [results from] all [four of] the methods again 

and again and again, the average of all those [measurements] should be quite similar to each other.” J.A. 2686.

The district court also found that clamping forces of 

Ethicon’s shears measured at the distal end of its clamping arm were lower, and clamping forces measured near 

the grip area of the shears were higher, than clamping

forces measured at its midpoint. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 

131, at 18. The district court believed this also demonstrated the claims were indefinite. Id. at 50. The district 

court, however, ignored testimony providing context for 

the differing force measurements at the proximal and 

distal ends of the clamping arm. There is no dispute that 

force measurements along the clamping arm vary. But as 

discussed above, when the clamping arm of Ethicon’s 

ultrasonic shears is in the closed position, a skilled artisan would know that the force applied by the clamping 

arm will be linearly related to the distance along the 

clamping arm where that force is measured. J.A. 4356 

¶ 102. A skilled artisan would also know that in order to 

find the average force applied by the clamping arm, he or 

she could measure the forces at the midpoint of the clamping surface area—which for Ethicon’s surgical shears is 

the midpoint shared by both the tissue pad and clamping 

arm. Id.; see also J.A. 2698.

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 12 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 13

Finally, the district court found that the clamping

force measurements at the clamping surface area of 

Ethicon’s shears varied based on differing heights between the tissue pad and the blade, differences which 

resulted from the type and amount of tissue to be transected and then sealed. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 131 at 20. 

There is no dispute that pressures measured at the same 

position along the clamping arm vary when the clamping 

arm is at different angles with the blade. See, e.g., J.A. 

4395 ¶ 147 (“[T]he data upon which [Covidien’s expert] 

relied . . . indicate that the clamp arm force clearly increases with increasing clamp arm angle. This is to be 

expected . . . .”). But this is immaterial to the scope of the 

claims, which are concerned with average clamping/coaptation pressures at the clamping surface area, or 

the “area where the blade and the tissue pad are in close 

proximity when the clamping arm is in a closed position.” 

’501 patent, 4:25–27. See also id. at 4:23–25 (“The pressures discussed herein are pressures seen by tissue when 

the entire clamping surface area is in contact with the 

tissue.” (emphasis added)). Thus, while the thickness of 

tissue disposed between the tissue pad and blade may 

affect the amount of clamping force required to operate 

the clamping arm and fully transect that tissue, such 

variances are irrelevant to the scope of the claims, which 

are concerned with the predetermined pressures measured when the clamping arm is already in a closed position.

Based on its evaluation of the extrinsic evidence, the 

district court found the claims of the ’501 patent to “closely resemble” the claims found to be indefinite in Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 341 F.3d 1332, 1338 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). The claims in Honeywell were directed 

to a process for manufacturing a particular type of multifilament polyester yarn. Id. at 1334. The parties’ dispute 

focused on the measurement of a claimed melting point 

elevation feature, which required the production of a 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 13 Filed: 08/07/2015
14 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

sample yarn specimen. Id. at 1336. Although the specification did not disclose any sample preparation methods, 

the parties identified four such methods purportedly 

known to those in the art. Id. Because each sample 

preparation method produced differing melting point 

elevation ranges, knowledge of the specific sample preparation method used was critical to discerning whether 

yarn had been produced using the claimed process. Id. 

We found the claims to be indefinite because nothing in 

the specification or prosecution history provided guidance 

as to which of the critical sample preparation methods a 

skilled artisan would have interpreted the claims to 

require. Id. at 1340.

The district court analogized the four undisclosed 

sample preparation methods in Honeywell to the four 

methods used by Ethicon to measure average clamping

pressures of its commercial product here, concluding that 

the failure of the ’501 patent to identify a specific method 

for measuring the clamping pressures recited by the 

claims rendered the claims ambiguous and indefinite. 

Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 131, at 54. The district court, 

however, did not appreciate several key distinctions 

between the facts here and the facts in Honeywell. First, 

in Honeywell, there was evidence in the record—in the 

form of prior art references—that skilled artisans knew of 

three sample preparation techniques to measure the 

claimed feature. 341 F.3d at 1340. The fourth technique 

was disclosed only in the patentee’s confidential files and 

the record contained no evidence that this method was 

known by those in the art. Id. at 1336, 1340. Second, it 

was undisputed that only this unpublished sample preparation technique provided measurements of the claimed 

feature that fell within the claimed ranges. Id. at 1336. 

Third, the different sample preparation techniques produced measurements of the claimed feature that “var[ied] 

greatly.” Id. Moreover, the patentee did not dispute that 

identifying the selected sample preparation technique was 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 14 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 15

“critical to discerning whether a particular product [wa]s 

made by a process that infring[ed] the [patent at issue’s] 

claims.” Id. at 1339.

Here, the specification clearly discloses that the 

claimed clamping/coaptation pressures are average pressures on tissue disposed between the tissue pad and 

blade, and are measured when the clamping arm and 

blade are in a closed position. This disclosure is sufficient 

to inform skilled artisans as to where these average 

pressures should be measured—the midpoint of the tissue 

pad (also the midpoint of the clamping arm for the ultrasonic shears at issue here). See, e.g., J.A. 4356 ¶ 102. In 

contrast, the intrinsic evidence in Honeywell provided no 

guidance as to how to measure a critical element recited 

by the claims (the melting point elevation range), and the 

only method of measurement that satisfied the claimed 

process was not only absent from the specification, but 

also unpublished outside the patentee’s confidential files. 

In addition, the extrinsic evidence in the record here 

shows that although there are different methods of measuring the claimed average pressures, each of these methods is designed to provide similar measurements, whereas 

the different methods of measurement in Honeywell

produced widely varying results. The district court’s 

reliance on Honeywell is misplaced; Honeywell involved 

factual circumstances that differ from the circumstances 

here in several important ways.

In short, the district court erred by finding the claims 

of the ’501 patent indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. A 

skilled artisan, in view of the specification, would understand the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. 

We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of 

Covidien’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity for 

indefiniteness. 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 15 Filed: 08/07/2015
16 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

B. The ’275 patent

The ’275 patent focuses on a different aspect of the ultrasonic surgical shears disclosed in the ’501 patent. In 

particular, the ’275 patent claims a particular configuration of an ultrasonic surgical shears device that generates 

and then propagates ultrasonic energy to the clamping 

end of the device, while dampening undesired vibrations. 

’275 patent, 2:3–7. The specification explains that the 

device includes a generator, a grip, a semi-flexible acoustic transmission rod, and a sheath around that rod. Id. at 

3:47–51, 7:52–64. An “end effector,” such as the clamping 

arm and blade assembly covered by the ’501 patent, is 

attached to the distal end of the acoustic transmission 

rod. See id. at 3:61–4:19. The generator transmits an 

electrical signal to a transducer, which converts the 

electrical energy into vibrational motion at ultrasonic 

frequencies. Id. at 1:12–15, 3:51–57. This vibrational 

motion results in longitudinal waves of ultrasonic energy 

that propagate through the acoustic assembly in a standing wave at a selected frequency and amplitude. Id. at 

3:57–61. The end effector, such as a clamping arm and 

blade, transfers the received ultrasonic energy to tissue 

(like blood vessels) disposed between the clamping arm 

and blade. Id. at 3:61–63. In addition to cutting the 

tissue, heat generated by the friction from the blade 

vibrating against the tissue causes proteins in the tissue 

to denature, resulting in the formation of a coagulum, 

which then helps to seal the cut tissue. Id. at 3:66–4:6.

The ’275 patent explains that only the transmitted 

axial (or longitudinal) vibrational motion—vibrations that 

move directly forward and backward along the transmission rod towards the blade and clamping arm—is desirable. Id. at 1:22–23. Transverse—or side-to-side—

vibrational motion can lead to sub-optimal performance 

and even damage the device. Id. at 1:25–30. To reduce 

transverse vibrational motion, the device includes a 

damping sheath that “loosely surrounds” the transmission 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 16 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 17

rod. Id. at 9:33–39. The specification explains that this 

sheath is attached to the transmission rod at nodal points, 

or points at which the ultrasonic standing wave vibrating 

through the transmission rod is at its minimum amplitude. Id. at 9:40–41, 5:57–60. 

Ethicon asserted infringement of Claims 1 and 3 of 

the ’275 patent. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 130, at 1. Claim 3 

depends from claim 1, which recites: 

1. An ultrasonic surgical device comprising:

a transducer assembly adapted to vibrate at an 

ultrasonic frequency in response to electrical energy;

a mounting device having a first end and a second 

end, the mounting device adapted to receive ultrasonic vibration from the transducer assembly and 

to transmit the ultrasonic vibration from the first 

end to the second end of the mounting device, the 

first end of the mounting device coupled to the 

transducer assembly;

a transmission rod having a first end and a second 

end, the transmission rod adapted to receive ultrasonic vibration from the mounting device and 

to transmit the ultrasonic vibration from the first 

end to the second end of the transmission rod;

a damping member surrounding at least a portion 

of the transmission rod, the damping member configured to loosely contact the transmission rod over 

a portion of the transmission rod, the damping 

member adapted to absorb undesired vibrations 

along the transmission rod without the use of a 

fluid; and

an end effector having a first end and a second 

end, the end effector adapted to receive the ultrasonic vibration from the transmission rod and to 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 17 Filed: 08/07/2015
18 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

transmit the ultrasonic vibration from the first 

end to the second end of the end effector, the second end of the end effector being disposed near an 

antinode and the first end of the end effector coupled to the second end of the transmission rod.

’275 patent at 16:50–17:10 (emphasis added).

After the close of discovery, Covidien filed a motion for 

summary judgment of noninfringement, contending that 

the damping sheath surrounding the transmission rod of 

its accused ultrasonic shears is not “configured to loosely 

contact” the transmission rod or “adapted to absorb 

undesired vibrations.” Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 130, at 2. 

The district court granted Covidien’s motion, finding no 

genuine dispute that Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears

did not satisfy either of those limitations. Id. at 21, 26–

27. On appeal, Ethicon challenges the district court’s 

construction of “loosely contact” and contends that the 

district court improperly resolved disputed issues of fact 

and conflicting expert testimony in Covidien’s favor.

We begin first with Ethicon’s challenge to the district 

court’s claim construction. The district court construed 

“configured to loosely contact” as “structured to have 

contact other than at fixed support points, but not tightly 

fitted.” Ethicon DCt, No. 11–cv–871, 2013 WL 1787153, 

at *7–8 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2013). Ethicon contends that 

the district court imported a limitation into the term 

inconsistent with its ordinary meaning—that “loose[] 

contact” is contact “other than at fixed support points.” 

According to Ethicon, nothing in the specification limits 

where this “loose contact” can occur, and thus that “loose 

contact” encompasses embodiments in which contact 

occurs only at fixed support points such as the “nodal 

ribs” where the damping sheath of Covidien’s accused 

ultrasonic shears is attached to its transmission rod. 

After review of the disputed term, we arrive at the same 

construction as did the district court.

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 18 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 19

We review the district court’s claim construction here 

de novo because it relied only on evidence intrinsic to the 

’275 patent. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 

135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). The words of a claim are 

generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, 

which is the meaning that the term would have to a 

person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time 

of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations 

omitted). Claim language must be viewed in light of the 

specification, which is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics 

Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1996)).

Claim 1 recites that the damping sheath surrounding 

the transmission rod “loosely contact[s] the transmission 

rod over a portion of the transmission rod.” ’275 patent, 

16:66–67 (emphasis added). The recitation of “over a 

portion” suggests that such “loose contact” is not contact 

only at discrete fixed points, as Ethicon contends. The 

specification reinforces this understanding, explaining

that a longitudinal slit extends along the damping sheath 

from one end to the other in order to allow the sheath to 

fit over the transmission rod. Id. at 10:52–54, 10:65–11:7. 

Without the slit, the damping sheath “may not be able to 

loosely contact the transmission rod” over its crosssectional diameter. Id. at 10:53–55. See also id. at 9:58–

60 (“The damping sheath 160 is preferably in light contact 

with the transmission rod 86 to absorb unwanted ultrasonic energy from the transmission rod.” (emphasis added)).

Moreover, the specification explains that this damping sheath “is more effective than using silicone rubber 

rings [‘nodal ribs’] located only at nodes of longitudinal 

vibration.” Id. at 10:7–9. This is because the damping 

sheath can “dampen transverse motion occurring near 

multiple antinodes of the unwanted vibration which are 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 19 Filed: 08/07/2015
20 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

located randomly along the length of the transmission 

rod.” Id. at 10:9–12. Antinodes are points at which the 

ultrasonic standing wave vibrating through the transmission rod is at its absolute value maximum, or peak, amplitude. Id. at 5:60–62. In short, the specification touts the 

benefits of the sheath for its ability to dampen vibrations 

along the full length of the transmission rod instead of 

only at certain fixed points. Thus, the specification 

strongly suggests that the desirable “loose contact” between the sheath and transmission rod is contact other 

than at only fixed points. In particular, this “loose contact” occurs at various portions of the sheath in between 

fixed nodes of the transmission rod, where the amplitude 

of the ultrasonic standing wave is at its peak. We find 

nothing in the specification supporting the notion that 

contact between the damping sheath and the transmission rod only at nodal ribs is “loose contact.” We therefore 

affirm the district court’s construction of “configured to 

loosely contact.”

Based on its construction, the district court found that 

the transmission rod of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic 

shears only contacted its damping sheath at fixed nodal 

rib supports, and thus did not satisfy the “loosely contact” 

limitation of the asserted claims. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 

130, at 17–18. The district court also found that because 

there was no evidence the transmission rod of Covidien’s 

accused shears contacted the sheath, there was no evidence that the sleeve “absorb[ed] unwanted vibrations 

along the transmission rod,” as required by the asserted 

claims. Id. at 22. Ethicon contends there are genuine 

issues of material fact as to 1) whether even under the 

district court’s construction of “loosely contact,” the damping sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears “loosely 

contacts” its transmission rod, and 2) whether Covidien’s 

accused shears are “adapted to absorb undesirable vibrations.” We agree with Ethicon.

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 20 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 21

We turn first to the district court’s determination that

there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the 

damping sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears 

does not “loosely contact[]” its transmission rod. Neither 

party disputes that the sleeve of Covidien’s shears is 

supported by fixed nodal ribs on its transmission rod, and 

that because these ribs have a greater diameter than the 

rest of the transmission rod, there is some amount of 

space along the length of the transmission rod separating 

the sheath from the transmission rod. Id. at 18. The 

district court found that because the nodal ribs were 

raised, contact between the sheath and the transmission 

rod was avoided. Id. The district court also determined 

that even if the accused sheath was capable of contacting 

the transmission rod, summary judgment would still be 

appropriate because there was no evidence that the 

accused sheath was “structured to have contact” at locations other than the fixed nodal ribs. Id. at 19. 

In particular, the district court relied on testimony 

from Covidien’s engineers that Covidien sought to design 

the sheath of its accused device so that it would not 

“loosely contact” the transmission rod. Id. at 19–20. This 

finding, however, did not take into account contrary 

evidence and testimony from Ethicon’s expert, J.A. 

3604, showing that the sheath of Covidien’s accused 

shears appeared to contact its transmission rod at points 

other than the nodal ribs during operation. Specifically, 

Ethicon’s expert examined two sets of high-resolution 

computer axial tomography (CT) and X-ray scans generated during tests of Covidien’s accused shears, testifying 

that it was his opinion that both sets of scans showed 

loose contact at points other than the fixed nodal ribs. 

J.A. 3603, 3617–18. 

Covidien’s expert disputed the testimony of Ethicon’s 

expert, opining that most of the scans did not show any 

contact between the sheath and transmission rod. J.A. 

2165. However, Covidien’s expert conceded that at least 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 21 Filed: 08/07/2015
22 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

one of the scans did show contact, but argued that such 

contact was due to a nonconforming “wrinkle” in the 

sheath. J.A. 2165–66; see also Appellee’s Br. 39–40 

(“[Although the CT scans at issue] may reflect contact of 

the [sheath] and [transmission rod] between the nodal 

ribs, any contact was due to a nonconforming ‘wrinkle’ in 

the sleeve component of that particular instrument.”). 

There is no evidence in the record, however, to support 

the expert’s assertion that this alleged wrinkle was indeed nonconforming. See J.A. 3630 (“Q. Did you 

[Covidien’s expert] ever discuss this wrinkle with any of 

the engineers at Covidien? A. No.”); J.A. 3631 (“Q. Does 

Covidien do imaging of every [accused] device to determine that it is wrinkle-free before leaving the factory? A. 

Don’t know.’). In short, it is clear that genuine disputes 

remain as to whether the sheath of Covidien’s accused 

ultrasonic shears “loosely contacts” its transmission rod.

We turn next to the district court’s determination that

there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the 

damping sheath of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears is 

not “adapted to absorb undesired vibrations along the 

transmission rod.” The district court found there was no 

proof that Covidien’s accused shears experienced undesired transverse vibrations and no proof that the accused 

shears absorbed those vibrations. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 

130, at 24. To reach this conclusion, the district court 

first relied on testimony from a Covidien expert, who 

performed certain water and glycerin droplet tests which 

purported to show that the transmission rod of Covidien’s 

ultrasonic shears did not experience any undesired transverse vibrations. Id. at 22. Next, as with the “loosely 

contact” limitation, the district court was persuaded by 

Covidien testimony that its accused shears were “purposefully designed” to avoid unwanted transverse vibrations. 

In particular, the district court relied on testimony of 

Covidien’s engineers that the transmission rod of its 

accused ultrasonic shears was designed to be symmetrical 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 22 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 23

and to resonate only in the longitudinal—and not transverse—direction, and that contact between the transmission rod and sheath at points other than fixed nodal ribs 

was identified as a “failure mode” of the sheath. Id. at 22, 

26. The district court, noting there was no dispute that 

undesired transverse vibrations were generated by 

asymmetry of the transmission rod, thus concluded that 

Covidien’s shears were designed to avoid generating 

transverse vibrations “by mechanical design.” Id.

The district court, however, improperly discounted 

clear evidence that the transmission rod of Covidien’s 

accused ultrasonic shears did experience transverse 

vibrations during testing. In particular, Covidien’s expert 

performed a “droplet test,” in which he placed droplets of 

water or glycerin on the transmission rod of Covidien’s 

accused shears. This test was performed on a fully assembled device by having the sleeve removed and windows cut into the sheath. According to Covidien’s expert, 

if the droplets splattered off the transmission rod, there 

were transverse vibrations, and if not, there were no 

transverse vibrations. Although Covidien’s expert testified that he saw no droplets splatter, Ethicon’s expert 

testified that he repeated the test using glycerine and 

observed the test fluid flying off tangentially from the 

transmission rod. J.A. 3688.

In addition, the district court’s conclusion that 

Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears were designed to 

avoid transverse vibrations is also based on an incomplete 

view of the record. In particular, the district court’s 

reliance on the symmetry of Covidien’s transmission rod 

as evidence that the accused shears avoided transverse 

vibrations “by mechanical design” is contradicted by 

testimony from Covidien’s own witnesses, who testified 

that the transmission rod was actually asymmetrical. 

J.A. 3604 (“[W]e don’t live in a perfect world, so there are 

straightness, curvatures of parts that are natural within 

the part . . . .”). In addition, the district court did not 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 23 Filed: 08/07/2015
24 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

address evidence in the record that Covidien’s manufacturing tolerances for the transmission rod allowed for a 

certain amount of variance that could result in asymmetries of the rod. J.A. 3605. Moreover, self-serving testimony from Covidien’s witnesses about the purported goal 

of its product design does not negate the evidence in the 

record, as discussed above, supporting the possible conclusion that the transmission rod of the accused shears 

actually did experience unwanted transverse vibrations. 

Taking all inferences in favor of the non-movant Ethicon, disputed issues of material fact remain as to whether 

Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears infringe or do not 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’275 patent. Rather 

than properly evaluating the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party, the district court 

appears to have impermissibly resolved factual disputes 

in favor of Covidien in order to reach its conclusions. We 

therefore vacate the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment of noninfringement of claims 1 and 3 of the ’275 

patent.3

3 We note that Ethicon also argues that the district 

court ignored testimony by Covidien’s own witnesses that 

the sheath of its accused device was “designed to contact” 

the transmission rod in order to prevent the rod from 

touching the inner diameter of an inner tube. J.A. 3649. 

Preventing such contact reduced the probability of an 

audible “squealing” when the two components touched. 

Id. But Ethicon does not show how the presence of 

“squealing” signals the presence of transverse vibrations, 

which are the “undesired” vibrations recited by the 

claims. Nor does Ethicon explain how such “squealing” 

provides evidence that the sheath absorbs transverse

vibrations of the transmission rod.

 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 24 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 25

C. The Design Patents

The Design Patents claim particular ornamental designs of an ultrasonic surgical device. The D’801 patent 

claims a particular ornamental design of an inverted “U”-

shaped trigger. The D’802 patent claims the overall 

appearance of the ornamental design of the “U”-shaped 

trigger and the particular ornamental design of a rounded 

and fluted torque knob positioned above and forward from 

the trigger. The D’803 patent claims the overall appearance of the ornamental design of the “U”-shaped trigger 

and the particular ornamental design of a rounded activation button positioned directly above the trigger. The 

D’804 patent claims the overall appearance of the ornamental designs of the “U”-shaped trigger, the fluted 

torque knob, and the rounded activation button, with the 

torque knob and the button positioned relative to the 

trigger as in the D’802 and D’803 patents, respectively. A 

figure from the D’804 patent, depicting the ornamental 

designs of the trigger, torque knob, and button claimed in 

various combinations and relative positions by the Design 

Patents, is reproduced below:

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 25 Filed: 08/07/2015
26 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

The district court concluded that the claimed designs 

in the Design Patents were all dictated by function and 

were therefore invalid. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, at 22. 

Specifically, the district court determined that under each 

consideration for assessing functionality identified in 

PHG Technologies v. St. John Companies, 469 F.3d 1361, 

1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Ethicon’s claimed designs were 

dictated by function. In the alternative, the district court 

found that because each of the designs of the trigger, 

torque knob, and button must be “factored out” under 

Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010), the Design Patents had no scope, and therefore 

Covidien’s accused design could not infringe the Design 

Patents. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, at 23–24. The 

district court also found that even if the functional elements were not factored out, there was no infringement 

under the ordinary observer test laid out in Egyptian 

Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

(en banc). Specifically, the district court found that the 

“highly sophisticated” ordinary observer in the “highly 

complex medical device purchasing process” would find 

that the claimed designs and the design of Covidien’s 

accused ultrasonic shears were plainly dissimilar. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 25–26. 

1. Invalidity

Design patents enjoy the same presumption of validity as utility patents under 35 U.S.C. § 282. L.A. Gear, 

Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. 

Cir. 1993); 35 U.S.C. § 171. Thus, Covidien has the 

burden to prove invalidity of the Design Patents by clear 

and convincing evidence. Microsoft v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 

S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011); L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1124. We 

have described as “stringent” this standard as it applies to 

invalidating design patents on grounds of functionality. 

Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002). We review the district court’s finding that the 

patented designs are dictated by their function for clear 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 26 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 27

error. Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563, 

1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Articles of manufacture necessarily serve a utilitarian 

purpose, but design patents are directed to ornamental 

designs of such articles. 35 U.S.C. § 171. If a particular 

design is essential to the use of an article, it cannot be the 

subject of a design patent. L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123. 

We have found designs to be essential to the use of an 

article when the claimed design is “dictated by” the use or 

purpose of the article. Id. (citing In re Carletti, 328 F.2d 

1020, 1022 (CCPA 1964); Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.2d 234, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Design 

patents on such primarily functional rather than ornamental designs are invalid. PHG Techs., 469 F.3d at 

1366; see also Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, 

Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 148 (1989). 

In determining whether a claimed design is primarily 

functional, “[t]he function of the article itself must not be 

confused with ‘functionality’ of the design of the article.” 

Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1462 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). In Hupp, we separated the function inherent 

in a concrete mold—producing a simulated stone pathway 

by molding concrete—from the particular pattern of the 

stone produced by the mold itself—an aesthetic design 

choice. Id. at 1461. Thus, even though the claimed 

design pattern was embedded within the functional 

concrete mold, the proper analysis required a determination of whether the design pattern within the mold—and 

not the concrete mold itself—was “dictated by” its function. Because there was no utilitarian reason the mold 

had to impress the particular claimed rock walkway 

pattern into the concrete, we determined that the claimed 

design was “primarily ornamental,” and not invalid as 

functional. Id. In High Point Design LLC v. Buyers 

Direct, Inc., we found that the district court had incorrectly relied on the functional aspects of a slipper—a seam 

connecting two components, a curved front accommodatCase: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 27 Filed: 08/07/2015
28 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

ing the foot, an opening facilitating ingress and egress of 

the foot, a forward lean of the heel keeping the heel in 

place, and a fleece interior providing warmth—to find the 

particular ornamental design of that slipper to be impermissibly functional. 730 F.3d 1301, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

We explained that a claimed design was not invalid as 

functional simply because the “primary features” of the 

design could perform functions. Id. As with its analysis 

on other validity grounds, the district court used “too a 

high a level of abstraction” in assessing the scope of the 

claimed design. Id. at 1314.

By contrast, in Best Lock, we affirmed a district 

court’s determination that a design patent to the blade of 

a key was invalid as functional, finding no clear error in 

the district court’s conclusion that the claimed key blade 

design was dictated by functional concerns. 94 F.3d at 

1567. In Best Lock, the claimed design was limited to a 

specific shape of a blank key blade. Id. at 1566. The 

parties did not dispute that the claimed key blade shape 

was designed specifically to perform its intended function—to fit into a similarly-shaped cylinder lock keyhole. 

Id. Further, the patentee presented no evidence of alternative compatible key blade designs, admitting that no 

differently-shaped key blade could fit into the keyhole of 

the corresponding cylinder lock. Id. Because no alternative design would allow the underlying article to perform 

its intended function, we determined the district court did 

not clearly err by finding that the claimed key blade 

design was dictated by function, and therefore invalid. Id.

at 1567.

We have also instructed that the overall appearance 

of the article—the claimed design viewed in its entirety—

is the basis of the relevant inquiry, not the functionality 

of elements of the claimed design viewed in isolation. For 

example, we acknowledged in L.A. Gear that certain 

elements comprising the claimed design of an athletic 

sneaker each had a utilitarian purpose, including a “delta 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 28 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 29

wing” supporting the foot and reinforcing the shoelace 

eyelets, side mesh paneling further supporting the foot, a 

“moustache” at the back of the shoe cushioning the Achilles tendon and reinforcing the rear of the shoe, and the 

particular positioning of each of these elements within the 

design of the shoe. 988 F.2d at 1123. Nevertheless, we 

explained that “the utility of each of the various elements 

that comprise the design is not the relevant inquiry with 

respect to a design patent” because whether a design is 

primarily functional or primarily ornamental requires 

viewing the claimed design “in its entirety.” Id. See also

Berry Sterling Corp. v. Pescor Plastics, Inc., 122 F.3d 

1452, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he determination of 

whether [a] patented design is dictated by the function of 

the article of manufacture must ultimately rest on an 

analysis of its overall appearance.” (emphasis added)). 

We have not mandated applying any particular test 

for determining whether a claimed design is dictated by 

its function and therefore impermissibly functional. We 

have often focused, however, on the availability of alternative designs as an important—if not dispositive—factor 

in evaluating the legal functionality of a claimed design. 

For example, the district court in L.A. Gear referenced the

evidence of many alternative designs that accomplished 

the same functionality associated with the underlying 

athletic sneaker. 988 F.2d at 1123. In view of that evidence, we noted that “[w]hen 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. Id. See also Rosco, 304 F.3d at 1378 

(“[I]f other designs could produce the same or similar 

functional capabilities, the design of the article in question is likely ornamental, not functional.”); Best Lock, 94 

F.3d at 1566 (same); Hupp, 122 F.3d at 1460 (same).

Here, the district court appeared to discount the existence and availability of alternative designs in determining that the claimed Design Patents were “primarily 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 29 Filed: 08/07/2015
30 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

functional” based on its evaluation of the five considerations identified in PHG, 469 F.3d at 1366 (quoting Berry 

Sterling, 122 F.3d at 1456). In Berry Sterling, we vacated 

and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity where it had failed to “elicit the appropriate factual underpinnings for a determination of 

invalidity of a design patent due to functionality.” 122 

F.3d at 1454. In our instructions on remand, we explained that where the existence of alternative designs is 

not dispositive of the invalidity inquiry, the district court 

may look to several other factors for its analysis:

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. 

Id. at 1456. We explained that evaluating these other 

considerations “might” be relevant to assessing whether 

the overall appearance of a claimed design is dictated by 

functional considerations. Id.; High Point, 730 F.3d at 

1315 (“Assessing [these five] factors may help determine 

whether a claimed design, as a whole, is ‘dictated by’ 

functional considerations.” (emphasis added)). Thus, 

while the Berry Sterling factors can provide useful guidance, an inquiry into whether a claimed design is primarily functional should begin with an inquiry into the 

existence of alternative designs. 

Ethicon presented evidence of alternative ornamental 

designs that could provide the same or similar functionality of the underlying ultrasonic shears. For example, 

Ethicon’s expert testified that “there [we]re many different designs that would function just as well” as the deCase: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 30 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 31

signs claimed in the Design Patents. J.A. 4807–18 ¶¶ 48–

56. Ethicon’s expert also identified multiple alternative 

designs for hand-held surgical devices in the prior art. Id.

at 4813–18 ¶¶ 50, 51, 55. Covidien’s expert admitted that 

other trigger designs, for example, would “work well” but 

“look different.” J.A. 5125. Indeed, Covidien does not 

contend on appeal that there are no alternatives to the 

claimed designs, but merely argues that such designs 

cannot be considered true alternatives because, as the 

district court found, they did not work “equally well” as 

the claimed designs. Appellee’s Br. 52–53.

The foregoing evidence does not support the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment that the claimed 

designs are primarily functional for two reasons. First, 

the district court’s determination that the designs did not 

work “equally well” apparently describes the preferences

of surgeons for certain basic design concepts, not differences in functionality of the differently designed ultrasonic shears. For example, in supporting its conclusion that 

alternative designs “would not have worked as well” as 

the claimed design, the district court pointed to testimony 

that surgeons preferred ultrasonic shears with certain 

basic design features like activation buttons on the front, 

rather than the rear of the device, “open” triggers, rather 

than closed or loop-style triggers, and forward positions, 

as opposed to other positions, for placement of the torque 

knob. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, at 18–19. 

Second, to be considered an alternative, the alternative design must simply provide “the same or similar 

functional capabilities.” Rosco, 304 F.3d at 1378 (reversing functionality finding because alternative mirror 

designs could still provide a similar level of performance); 

see also Seiko Epson Corp. v. Nu-Kote Intern., Inc., 190 

F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that to be 

patentable, there cannot only be one “possible [ornamental] form of the article that could perform its function”). 

Here, there is no dispute that the underlying ultrasonic 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 31 Filed: 08/07/2015
32 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

shears could still function in the same manner with a 

differently-shaped open trigger, activation button, and 

torque knob, and different relative locations of the trigger, 

button, and torque knob. See Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, 

at 18 (acknowledging that alternative designs exist). 

Indeed, Covidien identifies no evidence or testimony that 

the particular appearance and shape of the open trigger, 

torque knob, or activation button provided utilitarian 

advantages over other ornamental designs of those elements.

Further, the district court’s functionality inquiry used

too high of a level of abstraction. Instead of focusing on 

whether the specific patented designs had a functional 

purpose—the continuously curved “U” shape of the open 

trigger having tapered handles with ends flaring outwards, the football-shape of the activation button, and the 

asymmetrically-fluted torque knob with a flat front face—

the district court focused its PHG analysis on the functional characteristics that any design of an open trigger, 

button, and torque knob would have for the underlying 

ultrasonic shears.

For example, the district court supported its conclusion that the claimed designs were “primarily functional” 

using testimony from Ethicon witnesses that the chosen 

design was “the best design ergonomically” of those considered for Ethicon’s commercial product. Ethicon DCt, 

ECF No. 132, at 18. This ergonomic choice, however, was 

not a choice between different open trigger designs, but 

rather between the concept of an open trigger and a 

thumb-ring or loop-shaped trigger. J.A. 5573 ¶ 19 (“Part 

of [Ethicon’s] decision to use a shepherd’s hook trigger 

[i.e., an open trigger] instead of a thumb-ring or loopshaped trigger design stemmed from the aesthetic value 

of the shepherd’s hook design.”). This same evaluation of 

an open trigger guided the district court’s determination 

that alternative designs would not have worked as well as 

an open trigger because surgeons preferred the chosen 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 32 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 33

design to alternatives. And as discussed above, the 

surgeon-preferred design was not the specific patented 

design, but rather the general concept of an “open trigger” 

versus a “closed trigger” design. J.A. 3058 (Tr. 272:14–22) 

(Q. “What about changing the [open trigger design] to a 

closed trigger design, do you think that if you made that 

one change would that hypothetical device be as attractive to surgeons?” A. “I don’t think so. I think the open 

trigger . . . was [surgeons’] preferred design.”).

Similarly, the district court found significant the fact 

that Ethicon applied for utility patents that included 

figures similar to those of the claimed designs. Ethicon 

DCt, ECF No. 132, at 20. The district court noted that the 

utility patents described an “ergonomically formed” 

trigger with a proximal and distal portion having different lengths, a rounded button, and a fluted rotation knob. 

Id. at 20–21. Again, however, the district court’s analysis 

focuses on the concepts of an open trigger, button, and 

torque knob, rather than the specifically claimed design

conceptions of those elements. Finally, the district court 

relied on Ethicon’s advertisements for its commercial 

product touting the “intuitive controls” of the rounded 

button and torque knob that offered the “ergonomic 

benefit of ‘minimal index finger repositioning’” and the 

“easy access” provided by the open trigger. Id. at 21. 

These advertisements, however, tout the functional 

benefits of the general design concepts of the underlying 

elements rather than any functional benefits of the specific claimed designs.

Ethicon’s Design Patents cover only the specific ornamental conceptions of the features shown in their 

figures, and not the general concepts of an open trigger, a 

rounded button, and a fluted torque knob oriented in 

some configuration as part of an ultrasonic surgical 

device. The analysis of whether Ethicon’s patented designs are invalid as dictated by function must also be 

performed at a level of particularity commensurate with 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 33 Filed: 08/07/2015
34 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

the scope of the claims. For functionality purposes, “it is 

relevant whether functional considerations demand only 

this particular design or whether other designs could be 

used, such that the choice of design is made for primarily 

aesthetic, non-functional purposes.” Hupp, 122 F.3d at 

1460. The district court performed its functionality 

analysis at too high a level of abstraction, focusing on the 

general concepts of an open trigger, torque knob, and 

activation button rather than the ornamental designs 

adorning those elements.

Moreover, Covidien has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that no designs other than those claimed 

in the Design Patents allow the underlying ultrasonic 

shears to perform their intended function. Indeed, the 

evidence in the record leads to the opposite conclusion. 

We therefore conclude the district court clearly erred in 

finding that Ethicon’s patented designs are dictated by 

functional considerations and are therefore invalid as 

primarily functional. Because Covidien has not met its 

burden of showing that the Design Patents are invalid as 

functional, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of the Design Patents for 

functionality. 

2. Claim construction

Because the Design Patents are not invalid, we move 

to the district court’s grant of Covidien’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court 

found the claimed trigger, torque knob, and activation 

button elements of the Design Patents to be “based on 

functional considerations.” Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, at 

23–24. The district court therefore construed each claim 

of the Design Patents to encompass “nothing,” factoring 

out and removing every element from the scope of the 

claimed designs. Id. at 24.

We review the district court’s ultimate construction de 

novo, and any underlying factual findings supporting the 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 34 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 35

construction for clear error. Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841. 

Because a claimed design is better represented by an 

illustration rather than a description, we have instructed 

that, unlike utility patents, “the preferable course ordinarily will be for a district court not to attempt to ‘construe’ a design patent claim by providing a detailed verbal 

description of the claimed design.” Egyptian Goddess, 543 

F.3d at 679. We have explained, however, that there are 

a number of claim scope issues which may benefit from 

verbal or written guidance, among them the distinction

between features of the claimed design that are ornamental and those that are purely functional. Id. at 680.

For purposes of validity, as discussed above in section 

II.C.1., a design patent is invalid if its overall appearance 

is dictated by function, and therefore primarily functional. 

L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123. If the overall appearance of 

a claimed design is not primarily functional, the design 

claim is not invalid, even if certain elements have functional purposes. Richardson, 597 F.3d at 1293–94. The 

scope of that claim, however, must be limited to the 

ornamental aspects of the design, and does not extend to 

“the broader general design concept.” OddzOn Prods., 

Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 

1997).

Richardson involved a claim to the ornamental design 

of a multi-function carpentry tool that combined a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar. 597 F.3d at

1290. There was no dispute that several individual 

elements of the claimed design had functional purposes. 

In particular, a portion of the hammer head was flat to 

effectively deliver force to a struck object, the handle of 

the tool was elongated to provide leverage, the crowbar 

was at the end of the handle to reach into narrow spaces, 

and a jaw was located on the opposite end of the hammer 

head to allow the device to be used as a climbing step. Id.

at 1294. These elements—which composed the entirety of 

the multi-function tool—had utility that had been known 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 35 Filed: 08/07/2015
36 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

and used in the art for more than a century, and were 

thus outside the scope of the design claim. Id. This did 

not mean, however, that the design claim had no scope. 

Rather, the claim was limited to the ornamental aspects

of these functional elements. In particular, the scope of 

the claim encompassed, among other ornamental aspects, 

the shape of the hammer head, the diamond-shaped flare 

of the crowbar and the top of the jaw, the rounded neck, 

the undecorated handle, and the orientation of the crowbar relative to the head of the tool (which was not driven 

by functional considerations, unlike the orientation of the 

hammer head and crowbar at opposite ends of the handle). Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 786 F.3d 983, 998

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing Richardson and citing Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1050 

(D. Ariz. 2009)). Thus, the design claim did not broadly 

protect a multi-function tool with a hammer, crowbar, 

handle, and claw, but only the specific ornamental aspects 

of that tool in the depicted configuration. 

Similarly, in OddzOn, we limited the scope of a design 

claim to ornamental features of a football-shaped ball 

with a tail and fin structure, rejecting the patentee’s 

argument that its design claim covered the broad general 

concept of a ball with a “rocket-like” appearance. 122 

F.3d at 1405. We identified the “functional qualities” of 

the underlying article as its football shape combined with 

fins on a tail attached at one end of the ball, which added 

stability to the ball in the same manner as the tail and 

fins on darts or rockets. Id. Although the existence of a 

functional purpose for the football-shape, tail, and fin 

elements of the underlying article did not alone invalidate 

the design patent—as the claimed design also included 

some purely ornamental features—such functional aspects at least necessitated cabining the scope of the 

design claim in order to prevent the claim from encompassing the general design concept of a football with tails 

and fins. Id. (“[T]hese functional characteristics do not 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 36 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 37

invalidate the design patent, but merely limit the scope of 

the protected subject matter.”). Thus, we affirmed the 

construction of the district court, which removed the 

generalized football shape, tail, and fins from the scope of 

the claim, limiting the design claim to its purely ornamental features: a “slender, straight tailshaft” and “three 

fins symmetrically arranged around the tailshaft,” each 

“gentl[y] curv[ing] up and outward [to] create[] a larger 

surface area at the end furthest from the ball” and 

“flar[ing] outwardly along the entire length of the tailshaft” with the “fins seemingly protrud[ing] from the 

inside of the football.” Id. at 1400.

Here, the district court found that the “U”-shaped 

trigger, the torque knob, and the rounded button claimed 

in various combinations by the Design Patents are dictated by function. For example, the “U”-shaped trigger

operates the clamping arm of the ultrasonic shears. 

Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, at 20. Its “open” design allows 

the user to exert higher input forces by employing multiple fingers, thus lessening hand fatigue and strain. Id. 

The torque knob and rounded button provide functional 

controls for the ultrasonic shears. Id. at 21. Their placement relative to the trigger offers ergonomic access, and 

the fluted shape of the torque knob permits a user to 

operate the knob with one finger. Id. We agree that the 

trigger, torque knob, and activation button elements of 

the underlying article have functional aspects. But the 

district court’s construction of the Design Patents to have 

no scope whatsoever fails to account for the particular 

ornamentation of the claimed design and departs from our 

established legal framework for interpreting design 

patent claims. 

As explained in greater detail in section II.C.3., for 

purposes of claim construction, the district court ignored 

the facts that the trigger has a particular curved design, 

the torque knob has a particular flat-front shape, and the 

activation button has a particular rounded appearance. 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 37 Filed: 08/07/2015
38 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

Unlike the functionality inherent in the underlying articles themselves, there is no evidence in the record, that 

any of the ornamental designs adorning those underlying 

articles are essential to the use of the article. See section 

II.C.1. Thus, although the Design Patents do not protect 

the general design concept of an open trigger, torque 

knob, and activation button in a particular configuration, 

they nevertheless have some scope—the particular ornamental designs of those underlying elements. We therefore vacate the district court’s construction that the 

Design Patents cover “nothing.” The scope of the Design 

Patents, although limited, encompasses the depicted 

ornamental aspects of certain combinations of the trigger, 

torque knob, and activation button elements of ultrasonic 

surgical shears, in specific relative positions and orientations. 

3. Noninfringement

Although the district court construed the claims of the 

Design Patents to have no scope, it performed, in the 

alternative, an infringement analysis of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears based on a construction of the 

claimed designs that retained the ornamental aspects of 

the underlying trigger, torque knob, and activation button 

elements. Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, at 24, 26–34. We 

can thus evaluate the district court’s alternative grant of 

summary judgment of noninfringement of the Design 

Patents, because the district court apparently performed 

this analysis using a correct construction of the claimed 

designs. 

A design patent is infringed “[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.” Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670 (quoting 

Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871)). As with 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 38 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 39

utility patents, the patentee must prove infringement of a 

design patent by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 

679. Where the claimed and accused designs are “sufficiently distinct” and “plainly dissimilar,” the patentee 

fails to meet its burden of proving infringement as a 

matter of law. Id. at 678. If the claimed and accused 

designs are not plainly dissimilar, the inquiry may benefit 

from comparing the claimed and accused designs with 

prior art to identify differences that are not noticeable in 

the abstract but would be significant to the hypothetical 

ordinary observer familiar with the prior art. Id.

Differences, however, must be evaluated in the context of the claimed design as a whole, and not in the 

context of separate elements in isolation. Where, as here, 

the claimed design includes several elements, the fact 

finder must apply the ordinary observer test by comparing similarities in overall designs, not similarities of 

ornamental features in isolation. Richardson, 597 F.3d at 

1295; Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 

1303–04 (Fed. Cir. 2010). An element-by-element comparison, untethered from application of the ordinary 

observer inquiry to the overall design, is procedural error. 

Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 

1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

After performing a side-by-side comparison between 

the claimed designs and the design of Covidien’s accused 

shears, the district court concluded there could be no 

genuine dispute that the claimed and accused designs 

were plainly dissimilar because they “simply d[id] not 

look alike except for the fact that both are hand-held 

surgical devices with open trigger handles.” Ethicon DCt, 

ECF No. 132, at 26, 28. The district court thus determined that even if the Design Patents had scope, the 

design of Covidien’s accused shears did not infringe any of 

the claimed designs. Id. at 27.

The claimed and accused designs are depicted below: 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 39 Filed: 08/07/2015
40 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

D’804 patent, Fig. 1 Covidien’s accused product

We agree with the district court that there is no genuine dispute the claimed and accused designs of an ultrasonic surgical device are plainly dissimilar. On a general 

conceptual level, both designs include an open trigger, a 

small activation button, and a fluted torque knob in 

relatively similar positions within the underlying ultrasonic device. Similarity at this conceptual level, however, 

is not sufficient to demonstrate infringement of the 

claimed designs. As discussed in section II.C.2., because 

each of these components has a functional aspect, the 

underlying elements must be excluded from the scope of 

the design claims at this general conceptual level. And 

when the remaining ornamental features of those components are compared, as a whole, to the corresponding 

ornamental features of Covidien’s accused ultrasonic 

surgical shears, the dissimilarities between the designs 

are plain.

The district court identified the most obvious difference between the claimed and accused designs as “the 

overall contoured shape” of the claimed design and the 

“overall linear shape” of the accused design. Id. The 

district court also identified plain dissimilarities between 

the ornamentation of the trigger, torque knob, and button

elements of the claimed and accused designs. For the 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 40 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 41

trigger, the district court found dissimilarities between 

the proximal and distal portions of the claimed trigger 

handle, which curved toward and away from the device, 

respectively, and the proximal and distal portions of the 

accused trigger handle, which were parallel. Id. at 28. 

The district court also found differences between the 

width and length of the proximal and distal handles of the 

claimed and accused triggers, noting in particular that 

the proximal handle of claimed design was tapered at its 

end and at the portion connecting the proximal and distal 

handles, while the proximal handle of the accused design 

was a consistent width throughout. Id. at 29. For the 

activation button, the district court found the footballshaped button of the claimed design and the rectangular 

button of the accused design to be dissimilar. Id. at 31. 

As for the torque knob, the district court found dissimilarities between the unevenly-tapered flutes and flat front 

face with a large circular recess at its center of the 

claimed design, and the evenly-tapered flutes and rounded front face with no recess of the accused design. Id. at 

32–33. We find no error with the district court’s determination that the claimed and accused designs are plainly 

dissimilar.

Ethicon does not challenge any of these specific findings by the district court, but instead asserts that the 

claimed and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar, 

and as a result, contends that the district court should 

have considered the frame of reference provided by the 

prior art, which Ethicon characterizes as predominantly 

featuring thumb-ring and loop-shaped triggers. However, 

comparing the claimed and accused designs with the prior 

art is beneficial only when the claimed and accused 

designs are not plainly dissimilar. Egyptian Goddess, 543 

F.3d at 678. Because the district court found the nonfunctional, ornamental aspects of the claimed and accused 

designs to be plainly dissimilar, it did not need to compare 

the claimed and accused designs with the prior art, as 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 41 Filed: 08/07/2015
42 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

resolution of the infringement inquiry was already clear. 

Id. (“In some instances, the claimed and the accused 

design will be sufficiently distinct that it will be clear 

without more that the patentee has not met its burden of 

proving the two designs would appear ‘substantially the 

same’ to the ordinary observer.”).

Ethicon also contends that the district court erred in 

identifying who the ordinary observer would be. The 

district court found the ordinary observer to be a sophisticated entity who managed the complex medical device 

purchasing process, because that entity was the ultimate 

purchaser of the underlying ultrasonic surgical shears. 

Ethicon DCt, ECF No.132, at 25. Ethicon argues that the 

ordinary observer is the surgeon who would use the 

shears.

The Supreme Court explained in Gorham that the ordinary observer is not an expert in the claimed designs, 

but one of “ordinary acuteness” who is a “principal purchaser[]” of the underlying articles with the claimed 

designs. 81 U.S. at 528; Arminak & Assocs., Inc. v. SaintGobain Calmar, Inc., 501 F.3d 1314, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 

2007) (overruled on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess). 

Ethicon does not dispute that it is the hospital or medical 

device supplier, not the surgeon, who is ultimately responsible for purchasing the underlying articles at issue. 

Regardless, we see no need to resolve this dispute because 

Ethicon fails to explain how the infringement analysis 

would be affected if surgeons—who are more sophisticated 

than the general public—were considered to be the hypothetical ordinary observer. The claimed and accused 

designs are plainly dissimilar even to one less discerning 

than the ordinary observer; these distinctions would only 

be more evident to a sophisticated observer, whether a 

purchasing entity or a surgeon.

As the district court correctly concluded, the scope of 

the Design Patents “do[es] not entitle [Ethicon] to preCase: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 42 Filed: 08/07/2015
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 43

clude others from using all styles or placements of open 

triggers, fluted rotation knobs, or activation buttons.” 

Ethicon DCt, ECF No. 132, at 26. Rather, because these 

elements have functional purposes, the Design Patents 

protect only the ornamental designs adorning those 

elements, and not the general concept of an ultrasonic 

surgical device having an open trigger, a fluted knob, and

a rounded button. Here, there can be no genuine dispute 

that at the proper level of granularity, the claimed ornamental designs of the Design Patents are, as a whole,

plainly dissimilar from the ornamental design of 

Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears. Therefore, we 

affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of 

noninfringement of the Design Patents.

* * *

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive.

III. CONCLUSION

Because one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the 

specification, would understand the scope of the claims of 

the ’501 patent with reasonable certainty, we reverse the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of 

the ’501 patent for indefiniteness. We affirm the district 

court’s claim construction of the term “loosely contact” in 

claims 1 and 3 of the ’275 patent. We find, however, that 

disputed issues of material fact remain as to whether 

Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears infringe the “configured to loosely contact” and “adapted to absorb undesired 

vibrations” limitations of the asserted claims. Thus, we 

vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment of 

noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ’275 patent. 

Because Covidien has not met its burden of showing that 

the ornamental designs claimed by the Design Patents 

are primarily functional, we reverse the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment of invalidity of the Design 

Patents. We also vacate the district court’s construction 

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 43 Filed: 08/07/2015
44 ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. 

of the Design Patents as having no claim scope whatsoever. The ornamental designs claimed by the Design Patents, however, are plainly dissimilar from the designs of 

Covidien’s accused ultrasonic shears. We thus affirm the 

district court’s alternative grant of summary judgment of 

noninfringement of the Design Patents. Finally, we 

remand to the district court for further proceedings relating to the asserted claims of the ’501 patent and the ’275 

patent.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, 

VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-1370 Document: 69-2 Page: 44 Filed: 08/07/2015