Source: http://www.theordinaryobserver.com/2012_11_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 19:33:40
Document Index: 254595117

Matched Legal Cases: ['§283', '§ 171', '§\n171', '§171', '§ 171', '§1504', '§1504', '§ 171', '§\n171']

THE ORDINARY OBSERVER: November 2012
Federal Circuit Alert – Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co. No. 2011-1628
The Federal Circuit released its
decision in the design patent case of Revision
Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co. today, and the decision provides interesting insight into the Federal Circuit’s current mood regarding design
patents. Revision Military is an appeal from a decision of the District of
Vermont’s decision denying the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
in a design patent case. In this case,
Revision alleges that Balboa’s new “Bravo” design protective goggles were
copied from Revision’s “Bullet Ant” goggles which is covered by U.S. Design
Patents No. 537,098 and No. 620,039 (the ’039 patent):
focuses primarily on the standard for a preliminary injunction in patent cases,
generally, and is not unique to design patent law. The primary holding of the case was that the
District of Vermont incorrectly applied the Second Circuit’s heightened
standard of “clear” or “substantial” likelihood of success on the merits. The court explained that a preliminary
injunction enjoining patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283 “involves
substantive matters unique to patent law and, therefore, is governed by the law
of this court.” (citation omitted). Therefore, the case was remanded to the District of Vermont to apply the
Federal Circuit’s “more likely than not” standard.
However, the Federal Circuit also
took the opportunity to provide some noteworthy dicta on the subject of design
patent infringement. The court noted
that “[a]lthough the district court stated the correct ‘overall design’
standard [for infringement], the court focused on features that ‘stand out as
dissimilar,’ reciting the shape and sizes of the lenses, the concavity of the
nose bridge, and the venting along the top and bottoms.” The Federal Circuit stopped short of saying
that the district court’s infringement analysis was in error though. However, the court warned that “[a]lthough
individual features may indeed serve in assessing the ‘impact on the overall
appearance,’ … in determining whether apparently minor differences between specific
features would be recognized as distinguishing the designs, it is often helpful
to refer to any prior art with which the ordinary observer would reasonably be familiar.” The Federal Circuit then remanded the case to
the district court with a friendly suggestion to perhaps consider the prior
art. Although the district court’s
likelihood of infringement analysis was not central to the appeal, the Federal
Circuit took this opportunity to remind district courts (and perhaps design
patent practitioners) of the importance of context when determining design
patent infringement. Normally,
substantial similarity should not be determined in a vacuum, and relevant prior
art can inform the trier of fact as to the relative breadth of design patent
claims. Furthermore, consideration of
prior art does not necessarily mean a
narrower scope of protection. Where a
design is clearly unique within its field, it may be entitled to broader protection. Thus, Revision Military
may signal the Federal Circuit’s
intention to create a more rigid framework for design patent infringement
analysis, including consideration of prior art. We will continue to monitor this
case and provide any meaningful updates. A full copy of the Federal Circuit's decision can be found here. Posted by
Lululemon v. Calvin Klein Yoga-Pants Suit Dismissed
our prior post we discussed the yoga-apparel maker Lululemon Athletica Inc.’s
suit against Calvin Klein for design patent infringement. Last week Lululemon filed a voluntary dismissal of
the case against both Calvin Klein and its manufacturer. The Wall
Street Journal reports that the parties agreed to settle the patent suit,
though the parties kept the details of the deal confidential. The case was dismissed within two months of
filing the complaint, without Lululemon ever serving it. Such a quick resolution of this infringement action is another
testament to the strength of the design patent in the intellectual property
arsenal as a stand-alone protection mechanism. In the fashion industry, which is particularly
vulnerable to copying by others, design patents can effectively prevent other
companies from entering the market. Posted by
Design Patent Roundup – Week ending Nov. 16, 2012 We are catching up on two weeks
of design patent filings today, so there are several new cases. As always, we will continue to monitor the
dockets for the below cases and provide any noteworthy updates. Please take a look at the designs and
products at issue after the jump and let us know what you think in the comments
section. Read more »
In our previous posts we discussed using design patents as prior art against utility patent applications, with the caveat that the drawings in design patents may not sufficiently disclose the structure or the function of all the elements in the claimed invention. In a recent case of K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that two design patents used in an obviousness analysis were non-analogous art to the utility patent claims and that the asserted claims were not proved invalid. K-TEC, a company that manufactures and sells commercial blending equipment, owns U.S. Patents 6,979,117 (“the ’117 patent”) and 7,281,842 (“the ’842 patent”), covering blending jars with specific geometries. The specific geometry is claimed as “a fifth truncated wall disposed between two of the four side walls” and is illustrated below. As a result of this geometry, a vortex is created when blending liquid inside the container moves away from a central axis and toward the truncated wall. The shifted vortex creates a flow pattern that causes the liquid to ascend the corner opposite the truncated wall and to descend at the truncated wall during blending.
The Federal Circuit explained that for the reference to be
“analogous art,” the reference must satisfy one of the following conditions:
(1) the reference must be from the same
field of endeavor; or
(2) the reference must be reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it, as a result of its subject matter, “logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” As stated in the specification of the asserted patents, there are four prior art problems that the invention solves: blender speed, safety, cavitation, and the blender’s ability to blend frozen ingredients. In addition, the inventor testified that he sought to create a blending jar that would reduce or prevent cavitation when blending frozen drinks. Vita-mix argued under the second prong of the test, that the Grimes and Hobbs references were reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Vita-Mix also noted that during the USPTO reexamination of the ’117 patent, the Board held that both Hobbs and Grimes were analogous art. K-Tec argued that the ornamental designs of the Grimes and Hobbs pitchers “had no bearing on the inventor’s cavitation problem,” which was unique to blenders. K-Tec also noted that the size of the container was not a “problem” in the prior art.The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the design patent references were non-analogous art, finding that Vita-Mix did not “explain any rational underpinning for [the inventor] to have consulted non-blending containers or food mixers in order to solve the problems he encountered in designing a new blending container.” The Federal Circuit also found that the Board’s decision that both Hobbs and Grimes were analogous art did “not raise a genuine issue of material fact,” because the Board’s opinion did not issue until well after the district court entered final judgment. This case elucidates another caveat when design patents are used as prior art. The drawings in design patents are predisposed to be silent as to the particular problem the design patent was trying to solve and probably are entirely unhelpful in reciting a field of endeavor associated with the design. The lack of description in design patents may further limit a practitioner in arguing against obviousness rejections by an examiner during prosecution or in asserting an invalidity defense based on obviousness. For example, arguments that a design patent teaches away from the claimed subject matter or fails to establish that there is a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine multiple references would be very unlikely. Posted by
Solar Sun Rings, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. – Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement Denied
Last week, the Central District
of California rendered a decision on Wal-Mart’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
No Infringement in Solar Sun Rings, Inc. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 11-cv-6990, 2012 WL 5379144 (C.D. Cal. October
31, 2012). The case involves Solar Sun
Ring’s (“SSR”) U.S. Design Patent No. 579,570, which is drawn to a “Floating
Spa Cover” used to heat the water in a swimming pool. Below is a comparison of the figures of the
’570 Patent and the accused product, Wal-Mart’s “Solar Pad”:
Judge Gutierez began his decision
by construing the ‘570 Patent to cover “the illustrations that are contained in
the ‘570 Patent.” Id. at *3 (citing Egyptian
Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679). As stated in
our previous posts, this is the majority approach to claim construction
where there is no immediate issue of functionality within the design. With regard to infringement, the
Court addressed the level of examination required in design patent infringement
analysis. Wal-Mart made three
distinctions between the ‘570 Patent and the Solar Pad. First, the Solar Pad does not have 57 square
quilted “pillows.” Second, the ‘570
Patent lacks the gusset found in the Solar Pad. Third, the ‘570 Patent has a differently proportioned ring than the ‘570
Patent. Id. at *4. SSR countered that “comparisons of ‘similarities
in the overall design, not of similarities in ornamental features considered in
isolation ... should determine whether there has been infringement.’” (quoting Amini
Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006))
Judge Gutierez agreed with SSR,
and stated that “it is important to recognize that the inquiry is not whether
the Accused Product and design have ‘slight variances in configuration.’ Rather, the question is whether the two
designs look substantially the same to the observer's eye. Furthermore, ‘minor differences between a
patented design and an accused article's design cannot, and shall not, prevent
a finding of infringement.’” Id.
(citations omitted). Based on this
standard, the Court denied Wal-Mart’s motion.
SSR v. Wal-Mart, is a reminder that the standards for infringement
and anticipation for design patents, although theoretically identical, are
applied differently by the Patent Office and Federal Court. As other commentators have noted, the PTO typically does not apply a rigorous
anticipation and non-obviousness analysis to design patent applications. Design patents with only minor distinctions
from prior art sometimes have a good chance of being allowed. However, as in SSR v. Wal-Mart, Courts
appear willing to give design patents a somewhat broader scope during an
Although these divergent
standards can result in unfairness to unsuspecting defendants, it could be made
to work to their advantage as well. By
consistently seeking design patents for their new products, Defendants can
develop a record regarding the novelty of their products, and potentially
create a viable counterclaim in any future design patent lawsuits. Thus, a good design patent portfolio should
be thought of as a potential shield as well as a sword. Posted by
A couple of new design cases were filed last week. As always, we will continue to monitor the dockets for these cases and provide any noteworthy updates.
Emerson Electric Co. v. Sourceone
Plus, Inc., 1:12-cv-06252 (N.D. Ill. October
Plaintiff Emerson Electric Co. filed an amended complaint against Sourceone Plus, doing business as SOP Green Klean and GK Vac Bags, alleging infringement of D601318 - Filter for a wet/dry vacuum cleaner (see below). The original complaint, only asserted a utility patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,206,482 B2, entitled “VACUUM APPLIANCE FILTER ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATED VACUUM SYSTEMS”) against SourceOne. Below is a comparison of the ‘318 Patent with the accused Vacuum Filter as it appears in the complaint: The case has been
assigned to Judge Milton I. Shadur. Emerson Electric Co is represented by Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., no counsel of record for Sourceone as yet.
Umbra LLC v. Jobar
International, Inc., 1:12-cv-00966-RJA
(W.D.N.Y., October 12, 2012)
Plaintiff Umbra filed
a complaint against Jobar International, Inc. alleging infringement of its
Design Patent No. D657,172 and seeking injunctive relief and damages. According to the complaint, the patent covers
a “dress-shaped organizer” known and marketed as “LITTLE BLACK DRESS” , one of
Umbra’s home accessories and décor products. The allegedly infringing product is marketed
and sold under the brand U.S. Patrol as the “Hanging Dress Safe.” The case has
been assigned to judge Richard J. Arcara. Umbra is represented by Damon
Morey LLP and Simpson & Simpson
PLLC. There is no counsel of record yet for Jobar. The ’172 patent and the
accused product are shown below:
Apple's New Icon Design Patent - An Article of Manufacture?
In the midst of Apple’s ongoing
patent war with Samsung, we noticed an interesting design patent that was
issued last month on Apple’s familiar ITunes logo. The patent is U.S. Design Patent No.
668,263, entitled “Display Screen or Portion Thereof with Icon”:
Others have questioned the novelty of Apples ITunes logo. Nevertheless, Apple’s ‘263 Patent serves as a
reminder of the broad subject matter for design patents. Under the Patent Act, design patents may be
awarded to “[w]hoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an
article of manufacture.” 35 U.S.C. § 171. Historically, a “manufacture” was understood
to mean “‘by the hands of man’ from raw materials, whether literally by hand or
by machinery or by art.” Application of Hruby, 373 F.2d 997, 1000
(C.C.P.A 1967) (holding that the arrangement of jets in a water fountain was
patentable subject matter under §
171). Therefore, until the mid ‘90’s,
the PTO rejected design patent applications drawn to computer-generated icons (“CGIs”)
as failing to meet the requirements of §171. Specifically, the PTO consistently rejected CGI
applications as failing to meet the “article of manufacture” requirement. See,
e.g. Ex Parte Donaghue, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1266 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992):
We find that appellant's claimed design,
as disclosed in the application before us, is merely a picture. Appellant's
specification does not show or describe the claimed design embodied or applied
in any article of manufacture. Only pictures of the icon are shown or
described. The claimed subject matter, therefore, does not meet the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 171.
Then, in 1995, the PTO reversed
itself without explanation, declaring that “[a] design for a computer-generated
icon which is embodied in an article of manufacture is statutory subject matter
for a design patent under Section 171.” See
60 Fed. Reg. 52,170 (Oct. 5, 1995) (promulgating interim guidelines for the
review of design patent applications for computer-generated icons). Today, the PTO will allow a CGI
design patent “if the disclosure as a whole suggests or describes the claimed
subject matter as a computer generated icon embodied in a computer screen,
monitor, other display panel, or portion thereof.” M.P.E.P. §1504.01 (a). The M.P.E.P
also requires that the drawings for a CGI design must include a depiction of
the icon “embodied in a computer screen, monitor, other display panel, or a
portion thereof.” M.P.E.P. §1504.01 (a)(I)(B). Notably, the ‘263 Patent does not depict the
iTunes icon embodied in a computer screen or portion thereof.
Apple has had success with CGI
design patents in the past. Apple’s
Design Patent No. 604,305 (pictured below) was one of the patents that the jury
found Samsung had willfully infringed back in August. In fact there have been few, if any, other
cases in which a CGI design patent was asserted. Samsung did not argue that CGI
design patents were unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 171. Presumably, this was to avoid invalidating
its own CGI design patents. Thus, this
author is unaware of any court that has addressed whether the PTO’s current
interpretation of 35 U.S.C §
171 is correct. But for now at least,
CGI design patents remain an important part of any software developer’sintellectual property portfolio. As we have previously noted, software developers, should consider applying for design
patent protection in addition to standard trademark protection for the novel
graphics used in their programs.
How to Observe Ordinarily - Applying the Ordinary Observer Test