Opinion ID: 211779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Design Patent

Text: The jury found that appellants willfully infringed Hartco’s design patent of a decorative hitchcover. Appellants appeal this decision on the grounds that the verdict of patent infringement is not supported by substantial evidence, pointing out the differences, namely the extra (fourth) blade and the lack of the “four circular features” between the accused device and the patented design. Appellants additionally argue that the district court erred in its jury instructions for the patent infringement claim by failing to instruct the jury to apply the claim construction and by directing the jury to compare the accused device to the commercial product instead of the claimed product. Finally, appellants contend that the district court erred by allowing Hartco to show a videotape of the two devices in motion, which appellants argue obscured the differences. Hartco responds that the differences between the accused device and the patented design of the extra blade and the “four circular features” are irrelevant because the two different designs are impossible for customers to distinguish. Hartco argues that an addition of a fourth blade and an absence of the four circular features are not substantial changes and that the jury correctly found that the products are visually the same. Furthermore, Hartco responds that the jury instructions were proper, arguing that the device claimed by the Hartco patent and its commercially produced device are identical. Design patent protection is very narrow, covering only what is shown in the drawings in the patent. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Protection is further 04-1480, -1481, -1482, -1523 5 limited to only the novel ornamental features of the patented design. OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Lee v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 838 F.2d 1186, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, if a design contains functional and ornamental features, the patentee must show the alleged infringement based on the ornamental features only. OddzOn, 122 F.3d at 1405; Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 825 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We agree with the district court’s depiction of the drawings of the ’194 patent as showing a hitchcover “with three blades” attached to a tongue “having four circular features” that are visible. Only these ornamental aspects of Hartco’s patented hitchcover design, not the broader, general hitchcover concept that merely mimics a propeller, are protected. See OddzOn, 122 F.3d at 1405; see also Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 104 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Therefore, Hartco’s design patent does not cover any hitchcover shaped as a propeller with any number of blades, regardless of its ornamental features. See OddzOn, 122 F.3d at 1400. Specifically, the inclusion of blades, a nose, and a tongue are part of the general propeller concept and not protected ornamental aspects independent of their unique configuration. See Durling, 101 F.3d at 104. Instead, only the number and shape of the blades, as well as the four circular features, are ornamental aspects, subject to patent protection. Hartco chose to include these features in its design application and limited the scope of its patent claim to that design, see Elmer, 67 F.3d at 1577. Following claim construction, determining patent infringement next requires comparison of the patented and accused designs overall. Contessa Food Prods. Inc. v. 04-1480, -1481, -1482, -1523 6 Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Elmer, 67 F.3d at 1577. “Comparison to the accused product includes two distinct tests, both of which must be satisfied in order to find infringement: (a) the ‘ordinary observer’ test, and (b) the ‘point of novelty’ test.” Contessa, 282 F.3d at 1377; Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Prods. Int’l, Ltd., 157 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511, 528 (1871). The two tests are separate, with the “point of novelty” test requiring proof that the accused device infringes the novel aspects of patented design as distinct from the prior art. Contessa, 282 F.3d at 1377; Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under the ordinary observer test, “[o]ne must compare the ornamental features of the patented design, as shown in all of the drawings, to the features of the alleged infringing product visible at anytime during normal use of the product.” Contessa, 282 F.3d at 1380. Comparing the two designs, we disagree with the district court that the jury verdict of design patent infringement was supported by substantial evidence. The designs do not have to be identical to an accused device to be protected, see OddzOn, 122 F.3d at 1405, but Hartco’s patented design is limited to the design it claimed with the three-blades and four circular features. Appellants’ four-blade product has a substantially different overall ornamental appearance from the claimed three-blade product. See Elmer, 67 F.3d at 1577-78. As no reasonable jury could have concluded that the overall visual appearance of the claimed design is substantially similar to the accused design, we do not need to employ the point of novelty test. See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., 997 F.2d at 1451. We thus reverse the district court’s denial of 04-1480, -1481, -1482, -1523 7 judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law, together with the award of damages for design patent infringement.2