Opinion ID: 210374
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bulge Outwardly in a Bulbous Fashion

Text: With respect to Calmar's asserted second point of novelty, the sides of the shroud that bulge outwardly in a bulbous fashion, to the rear of the shroud, the district court found that Arminak's AA Trigger shroud did not appropriate this point of novelty because, similar to several prior art patents, Arminak's AA Trigger shroud's sides instead flare out in straight lines before converging slightly inward toward the bottom of the shroud. Id. at 1204. The district court cited to the '222 patent's drawings in support of its finding that the AA Trigger does not contain the bulbous sides point of novelty Calmar claims. The AA Trigger's flared appearance, when viewed from the back, is similar to the back view disclosed in the '222 Patent. . . . Indeed, any similarity that might appear between the back portion of the AA Trigger and the back drawings of the patented designs is no greater than the similarity between the back views claimed in the patented designs and the back view shown in the '222 Patent. Id. at 1204 n. 14. The similarities and differences between the back of the patented designs, the prior art, and Arminak's AA Trigger shroud are illustrated below: Arguably, the bulbous bulge of the sides of the patented designs are novel when compared to the prior art. We agree with the district court that based on the bulbous sides as depicted in the back views of Calmar's patents' drawings, no reasonable jury could find that the back of Arminak's AA Trigger shroud, which is almost identical to the '198 and '222 prior art patents, appropriates Calmar's second point of novelty. Our conclusion is that Arminak's AA Trigger shroud does not appropriate the two points of novelty from the prior art as Calmar contends. We agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that Calmar's points of novelty exist in Arminak's AA Trigger shroud. Calmar contends that the district court in its analysis improperly merged the point of novelty test with the ordinary observer test, which we have held is legal error. Contessa, 282 F.3d at 1377. We disagree with Calmar's contention. The district court's opinion is clear that its point of novelty analysis was confined to determining Calmar's points of novelty and whether Arminak's AA Trigger shroud appropriated Calmar's points of novelty. Calmar implies that the district court should have limited its discussion of the points of novelty comparison to only the exact words Calmar used to describe its two points of novelty and that the district court should not have looked at Calmar's patents' Figures. The relevant inquiry is not to analyze the words used by the patent owner to describe a particular design feature after the issuance of the patent, but whether the design feature, as it appears in the Figures of the patent as issued, is found in the accused design. Calmar also implies that it was improper for the district court to do a detailed side-by-side comparison between the patented design and the accused design. Calmar cites no authority for this contention because there is none. To establish infringement in a design patent case, the district court is required to compare the patented design with the accused design. See Elmer, 67 F.3d at 1577. Without comparing the patented design with the accused design, there was no way for the district court to determine whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design deceptively similar and whether the accused design appropriated points of novelty. Therefore, based on our de novo review, we find that the district court applied both judicially articulated design patent infringement tests in the proper manner. Neither test is satisfied in this case.