Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01435/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01435-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Does
Not party
Endliss Technology, Inc.
Cross-Appellant
Spigen Korea Co., Ltd.
Appellant
Ultraproof, Inc.
Cross-Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD., A REPUBLIC OF 

KOREA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ULTRAPROOF, INC., A CALIFORNIA 

CORPORATION, ULTRAPROOF, INC., A NEVADA 

CORPORATION, ENDLISS TECHNOLOGY, INC., A

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

Defendants-Cross-Appellants

DOES, 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendant

______________________

2019-1435, 2019-1717

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in Nos. 2:16-cv-09185-DOCDFM, 2:17-cv-01161-DOC-DFM, Judge David O. Carter.

______________________

Decided: April 17, 2020 

______________________

JOSHUA DAVID CURRY, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & 

Smith LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

Also represented by BRIAN G. ARNOLD, JOSEPHINE BROSAS,

JEAN KIM, Los Angeles, CA. 

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2020
2 SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC.

 BENJAMIN ADAM CAMPBELL, Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd., 

Schaumburg, IL, argued for defendants-cross-appellants. 

Also represented by EDWARD L. BISHOP, JAMES JAGODA. 

 ______________________

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.

Circuit Judge LOURIE dissents.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Spigen Korea Co., Ltd., appeals the decision of the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of three 

asserted design patents. Ultraproof, Inc., cross-appeals the 

district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. Because the district court improperly resolved a genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment, we reverse the 

district court’s decision and remand for further proceedings. We dismiss the cross-appeal as moot. 

BACKGROUND

Spigen Korea Co., Ltd., (“Spigen”) owns U.S. Design 

Patent Nos. D771,607 (“the ’607 patent”), D775,620 (“the 

’620 patent”), and D776,648 (“the ’648 patent”) (collectively 

the “Spigen Design Patents”), which each claim a case for 

a cellular phone. Figures 3–5 of the ’607 patent are illustrative of the claimed design: 

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2020
SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC. 3

J.A. 88–90. 

The ’620 patent disclaims certain elements present in

the ’607 patent. Figures 3–5 of the ’620 patent are illustrative of the claimed design1: 

J.A. 99–101. 

Lastly, the ’648 patent disclaims most of the elements

present in the ’607 and ’620 patents. Figures 3–5 of the 

’648 patent are illustrative of the claimed design2: 

J.A. 110–12.

On February 13, 2017, Spigen sued Ultraproof, Inc.,

(“Ultraproof”) for infringement of the Spigen Design Patents in the United States District Court for the Central 

1 The design figures of the patent contain solid and 

broken lines. The broken lines depict features disclaimed 

from of the claimed design. 

2 See supra note 1. 

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2020
4 SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC.

District of California. Ultraproof filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the Spigen Design Patents. 

Ultraproof argued that the Spigen Design Patents were obvious as a matter of law in view of a primary reference, U.S. 

Design Patent No. D729,218 (“the ’218 patent”), and a secondary reference, U.S. Design Patent No. D772,209 (“the 

’209 patent”). Spigen opposed the motion, arguing that as 

a matter of law, the Spigen Design Patents were not rendered obvious by the ’218 patent and the ’209 patent. Alternatively, Spigen argued, various underlying factual 

disputes precluded summary judgment. The district court 

held as a matter of law that the Spigen Design Patents 

were obvious over the ’218 patent and the ’209 patent and 

granted summary judgment of invalidity in favor of Ultraproof. 

Subsequently, Ultraproof moved for attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court denied the 

motion. Spigen timely appeals the obviousness determination. Ultraproof cross-appeals the denial of attorneys’ fees. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a grant of summary judgment under the law 

of the regional circuit, which in this case is the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 949 

F.3d 691, 693 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Ninth Circuit reviews 

a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See, 

e.g., L.F. v. Lake Wash. Sch. Dist. #414, 947 F.3d 621, 625 

(9th Cir. 2020). Summary judgment is appropriate when 

the moving party demonstrates that “there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In 

other words, summary judgment may only be granted 

when no “reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 4 Filed: 04/17/2020
SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC. 5

Summary judgment of obviousness is appropriate if 

“the content of the prior art, the scope of the patent claim, 

and the level of ordinary skill in the art are not in material 

dispute, and the obviousness of the claim is apparent in 

light of these factors.” MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter 

Mfg., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation 

and quotation marks omitted). Design patents are presumed valid and, thus, a moving party seeking to invalidate a design patent at summary judgment must submit 

such clear and convincing evidence of facts underlying invalidity that no reasonable jury could find otherwise. See 

Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 

1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

I

Spigen raises several grounds for reversing the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment. First, Spigen argues 

that there is a material factual dispute over whether the 

’218 patent is a proper primary reference that precludes

summary judgment. We agree.

For design patents, the ultimate inquiry for obviousness “is whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of 

the type involved.” Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, 

Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting 

Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. 

Cir. 1996)). This inquiry is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. See, e.g., MRC Innovations, 747 

F.3d at 1331. One underlying factual issue is whether a 

prior art design qualifies as a “primary reference.” High 

Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 

1311 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that a “finder of fact” 

must identify a primary reference); see also Campbell Soup 

Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 939 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed Cir. 

2019) (same); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 

1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (same).

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 5 Filed: 04/17/2020
6 SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC.

A “primary reference” is “a single reference that creates 

‘basically the same’ visual impression” as the claimed design. High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Durling, 101 F.3d at 103). To be “basically the same,” the 

designs at issue cannot have “substantial differences in 

the[ir] overall visual appearance[s].” Apple, 678 F.3d at

1330. Additionally, if “major modifications” would be required to make a design look like the claimed design, then 

the two designs are not “basically the same.” In re Harvey, 

12 F.3d 1061, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “[S]light differences” 

in design, however, do not necessarily preclude a “basically 

the same” finding. MRC Innovations, 747 F.3d at 1333.

Although a “trial court judge may determine almost instinctively whether the two designs create basically the 

same visual impression,” Durling, 101 F.3d at 103, a trial 

court is not free to find facts at the summary judgment 

phase. Lemelson v. TRW, Inc., 760 F.2d 1254, 1260 (Fed. 

Cir. 1985) (“For summary judgment, fact-finding is an inappropriate exercise, at either the appellate or the district 

court level. If a dispute requiring a finding exists as to any 

material fact, summary judgment is improper.”). Thus, if 

based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could find in favor 

of the non-moving party, a trial court must stay its hand 

and deny summary judgment of obviousness. See High 

Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1314–15 (reversing the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment because “there appear 

to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the 

Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references”). 

Here, the district court found that despite “slight differences,” the ’218 patent undisputedly was “basically the 

same” as the Spigen Design Patents, and, thus, a proper 

primary reference. J.A. 27. This determination was error 

because, based on the competing evidence before the district court, a reasonable factfinder could find otherwise. 

Spigen’s expert, Mr. Delman, testified that the Spigen 

Design Patents and the ’218 patent are not “at all similar, 

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 6 Filed: 04/17/2020
SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC. 7

let alone ‘basically the same.’” J.A. 4703 (quoting Delman 

Rebuttal Expert Report ¶176). He also testified that unlike 

the Spigen Design Patents, the ’218 patent “‘[has] unusually broad front and rear chamfers and side surfaces’ and a 

‘substantially wider surface,’ ‘lack[s] any outer shell-like 

feature or parting lines,’ lacks an aperture on its rear side, 

and ‘[has] small triangular elements illustrated on its 

chamfers.’” Id. The following side-by-side comparison of

Spigen’s ’607 patent, representative of the Spigen Design 

Patents, and the ’218 patent, displays these differences:

J.A. 86, 90, 161, 163. 

Spigen also argued before the district court that:

[d]efendants have proposed so many modifications 

to the ’218 Patent to make it look more like the 

Spigen patents (e.g., add outer shell that wraps 

around back and side surfaces, add lateral parting 

lines, add large circular aperture to rear, shrink 

the side surfaces, shrink the chamfers, and remove 

ornamental triangular elements), that the ’218 patent can no longer qualify as a primary reference.

J.A. 4704. 

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 7 Filed: 04/17/2020
8 SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC.

Ultraproof, contrastingly, argued below that the ’218 

patent was “‘basically the same’ as the claimed designs” because all of the designs had (1) a “generally rectangular appearance with rounded corners,” (2) a “prominent rear 

chamfer and front chamfer,” and (3) “elongated buttons corresponding to the location of the buttons of the underlying 

phone.” J.A. 374–75. Ultraproof argued that the “only perceivable difference[s]” between the ’218 patent and the 

Spigen Design Patents were the “circular cutout in the upper third of the back surface and the horizontal parting 

lines on the back and side surfaces.” J.A. 375 (footnote 

omitted).3

In the light of the competing evidence in the record, a 

reasonable factfinder could conclude that the ’218 patent 

and the Spigen Design Patents have substantial differences, and, thus, are not basically the same. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c). Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment of obviousness was in error and must be 

reversed. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 105 (“Without . . . a primary reference, it is improper to invalidate a design patent 

on grounds of obviousness.”); see also High Point, 730 F.3d 

at 1314–15. We therefore need not address Spigen’s 

3 On appeal, Ultraproof argues that many of the differences between the Spigen Design Patents and the ’218 

patent are “largely differences of degree, not characteristic,” and, thus, irrelevant to the “basically the same” inquiry. For example, Ultraproof asserts that the ’218 

patent’s “bulkier appearance” is “a difference of degree 

(large vs small) as opposed to a difference in characteristics, such as [a] sunken screen.” We reject this argument. 

No precedent makes such a distinction, and we decline to 

do so today. 

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 8 Filed: 04/17/2020
SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC. 9

alternative grounds for reversal.4 We now turn to Ultraproof’s alternative grounds for affirmance. 

II

Ultraproof presents four alternative grounds for affirming if we determine the district court’s obviousness 

analysis was flawed. Three of these grounds—obviousness 

over the ’209 patent as the primary reference and the ’218 

patent as the secondary reference; obviousness over various combinations of other prior art; and inequitable conduct—were not decided by the district court. We therefore

decline to decide these issues in the first instance. See

TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 608 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010) (“Because, as a general matter, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon 

below, . . . we decline to address these arguments in the 

first instance and refer them to the district court for consideration on remand.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). The district court is free to consider these grounds 

on remand. 

As to the fourth ground, Ultraproof argues that we 

must affirm because the Spigen Design Patents’ claimed 

designs were described in a printed publication before their 

effective filing date and are thus precluded from patent 

protection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a). Ultraproof cites to two 

copyright registrations for support. The district court, 

4 Spigen’s alternative grounds for reversal are that 

the district court erred by determining that the ’209 patent 

was an appropriate secondary reference and that Ultraproof’s hypothetical combination of the ’218 patent and the 

’209 patent rendered obvious the Spigen Design Patents. 

Spigen also asserts that even if Ultraproof had made a 

prima facie case of obviousness, secondary considerations 

of non-obviousness present a genuine dispute of material 

fact, precluding summary judgment.

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 9 Filed: 04/17/2020
10 SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD. v. ULTRAPROOF, INC.

however, determined that a genuine dispute of material 

fact exists regarding the publication date of the copyright 

registration certificates. The district court thus denied this 

ground of invalidity at the summary judgment phase. We 

agree with the district court and thus reject this alternative ground. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. We determine that a genuine 

dispute of material fact exists as to whether the ’218 patent 

is basically the same as the Spigen Design Patents and 

hence, a proper primary reference. We thus reverse the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity 

and remand for further proceedings. Because we remand 

for further proceedings, Ultraproof is no longer the prevailing party. We thus dismiss Ultraproof’s cross-appeal of the 

district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees as moot. Circuit 

Judge Lourie dissents. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

COSTS

No Costs.

Case: 19-1435 Document: 76 Page: 10 Filed: 04/17/2020