Opinion ID: 3066240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Design Patents

Text: 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: 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.
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 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 accommodat28 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 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 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 ex- plained 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 ad- versely affect the utility of the specified article; whether there are any concomitant utility pa- tents; 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 deETHICON 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 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 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 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 con- vincing 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.
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 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 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 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. 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.
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 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: 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 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 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 or- dinary 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 preETHICON 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.