Opinion ID: 776871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Design As A Whole Including All Figures

Text: 19 In its opinion, the district court considered a physical sample of one of the empty trays used in the accused products: [t]he parties have submitted a sample of one of Defendants' trays, without shrimp. Jt. Ex. 101. However, the district court discussed this one physical sample only in connection with narrow features shown in Figure 5 of the '612 patent, describing minor structural differences between the '612 design and the accused product. The ornamental appearance of the underside of the sample tray is not mentioned, nor is it compared to the '612 design shown in Figure 4. 20 It has been consistently held for many years that it is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling in determining questions of ... infringement. In re Rubinfield, 47 C.C.P.A. 701, 270 F.2d 391, 395, 123 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1959). Our precedent makes clear that all of the ornamental features illustrated in the figures must be considered in evaluating design patent infringement. This is because [a] patented design is defined by the drawings in the patent, not just by one feature of the claimed design. KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450, 27 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed.Cir.1993). In particular, in the ordinary observer analysis, the patented design is viewed in its entirety, as it is claimed. L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1125, 25 USPQ2d 1913, 1918 (Fed.Cir.1993). If features appearing in the figures are not desired to be claimed, the patentee is permitted to show the features in broken lines to exclude those features from the claimed design, and the failure to do so signals inclusion of the features in the claimed design. Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc., 256 F.3d 1308, 1313, 59 USPQ2d 1472, 1475 (Fed.Cir.2001). 21 In support of its conclusion that the accused and patented designs are substantially similar, the district court remarked that we must bear in mind that the attention of the ordinary observer at the point of sale is far more likely to focus on the arrangement of shrimp than minor features of the structure of the underlying tray, for the simple reason that the shrimp cover and obscure most structural features of the tray — a fact reflected in the '612 drawings. Jt. Ex. 1, figs. 1-3, 5. Notably absent is any consideration of Figure 4 of the '612 patent, illustrating the underside of the patented design not covered or obscured by the shrimp. 22 Even where the district court contemplated an analysis of the features of the tray alone, Figure 4 was apparently not included: 23 Even if we compared only the competing products' trays, without considering the arrangement of shrimp, we would be hard-pressed to conclude that an ordinary observer would find the products sufficiently dissimilar to prevent a finding of infringement.... While the tray's features are relevant to the infringement analysis — they are, after all, depicted in figure 5 of the '612 patent — they cannot, contrary to Defendants' contentions, form the entire basis for our substantial similarity analysis. 24 The absence of any consideration or comparison of the features of the tray depicted in Figure 4 in the district court's analysis of the competing products' trays reflects that the underside of the patented tray design was not part of the infringement analysis. We conclude that this omission was erroneous. We hold that the ordinary observer analysis is not limited to the ornamental features of a subset of the drawings, but instead must encompass the claimed ornamental features of all figures of a design patent.