Opinion ID: 2659296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Primary Reference

Text: The district court used the “Eagles” pet jersey as the “primary reference” under step one of the Durling analysis. MRC, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 809. MRC argues that this was legally erroneous because there are significant differences between the Eagles jersey and the patented design of the ’488 patent. Specifically, there are three differences: (1) the patented design has a V-neck collar where the Eagles jersey has a round neck; (2) the patented design contains an interlock fabric panel on the side portion of the design rather than mesh; and (3) the patented design contains additional ornamental surge stitching on the rear portion of the jersey. MRC argues that the district court overlooked these differences by focusing on the claimed design at “too high a level of abstraction.” High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). If the district court had translated the claimed design into a verbal description as required by High Point, MRC insists, it would have concluded that neither the Eagles jersey nor any other prior art reference contained design characteristics that were “basically the same” as the claimed design. As an initial matter, it is true that the district court did not expressly undertake to translate the claimed design into a verbal description. However, High Point makes clear that the purpose of requiring district courts to describe the claimed design in words is so that the parties and appellate courts can discern the trial court’s 8 MRC INNOVATIONS, INC. v. HUNTER MFG., LLP reasoning in identifying a primary reference. See id. (citing Durling, 101 F.3d at 103). It is entirely clear from the district court’s opinion what it considered to be the relevant design characteristics of the ’488 patented design. First, the district court pointed out three key similarities between the claimed design and the Eagles jersey: an opening at the collar portion for the head, two openings and sleeves stitched to the body of the jersey for limbs, and a body portion on which a football logo is applied. MRC, 921 F. Supp. 2d at 809. If the district court’s analysis had ended there, it might indeed have failed to meet the High Point verbal description requirement. However, the district court went on to point out two additional similarities between the two designs: first, the Eagles jersey is made “primarily of a mesh and interlock fabric”; and second, it contains at least some ornamental surge stitching—both features found in the ’488 claimed design. Id. The district court also went on to acknowledge the three major differences between the two designs that are enumerated above. See id. Taking all of those things together (the at least five design characteristics that the claimed design shares with the Eagles jersey and three design characteristics that differ from it), the district court painted a clear picture of the claimed design. The district court did far more than merely ask whether the Eagles jersey disclosed the “general concept” of a pet jersey; it thoroughly considered the “distinctive ‘visual appearances’ of the reference and the claimed design.” Apple, 678 F.3d at 1332 (quoting Durling, 101 F.3d at 104). Thus, the district court did not err by failing to provide an express verbal description of the claimed design; rather, it described the claimed design in the context of comparing it to the prior art. Nor did the district court err in finding that the design characteristics of the ’488 design created “basically the same” overall visual impression as the Eagles jersey MRC INNOVATIONS, INC. v. HUNTER MFG., LLP 9 prior art reference. As the district court noted, both designs contain the same overall shape, similar fabric, and ornamental surge stitching. That there are slight differences in the precise placement of the interlock fabric and the ornamental stitching does not defeat a claim of obviousness; if the designs were identical, no obviousness analysis would be required. 1 Indeed, we have permitted prior art designs to serve as “primary references” when their differences are as great or greater than the differences in this case. See Jore Corp. v. Kouvato, Inc., 117 F. App’x 761, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding prior art drill bit to be a primary reference despite containing a smooth cylindrical shaft rather than the grooved hexagonal shaft of the claimed design); In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1217-18 (CCPA 1981) (finding tweezer design obvious in light of prior art reference that contained vertical rather 1 This conclusion is not inconsistent with the law of this circuit on design patent infringement. In that context, we have often noted that design patents have “almost no scope” beyond the precise images shown in the drawings. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, in practice, our focus on the “overall visual appearance” of a claimed design rather than on individual features has led us to find products infringing despite differences in specific ornamental features. For example, in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010), we concluded that all of the accused products infringed the asserted design patents despite the fact that two of the infringing products (the Groovy DAWGS™ shoes and Big DAWGS™ shoes) contained a wider shoe front with an additional row of holes, and another infringing product (the Effervescent Waldies AT shoe) contained square holes on the top of the shoe rather than round ones. Id. at 1303-06. 10 MRC INNOVATIONS, INC. v. HUNTER MFG., LLP than horizontal fluting and straight rather than curved pincers). 2 Apple, 678 F.3d 1314, on which MRC relies, is not to the contrary. There, we faulted the district court for finding that the prior art Fidler tablet could serve as a primary reference to the patented tablet design. Id. at 1330-31. However, in that case we noted “substantial differences in the overall visual appearance between the patented design and the Fidler reference,” and described no fewer than six differences between the two products. Id. Among other things, the Fidler tablet was asymmetrical where the patented tablet was symmetrical; it contained a sunken screen that created a “picture frame” effect rather than the visual impression of “an unbroken slab of glass extending from edge to edge on the front side of the [patented] tablet”; and it contained two card-like projections and an indentation on its sides rather than the smooth sides of the claimed design. Id. These differences rendered the Fidler tablet significantly different in overall visual appearance from the patented design; the same cannot be said of the ’488 patented design and the Eagles jersey, which we agree are “basically the same.” 3 2 The relatively few other cases in which we evalu- ated whether a prior art design can serve as a “primary reference” are unhelpful, as they either conclude that a reference that is more similar to the claimed design than we have in this case can serve as a primary reference, see, e.g., Titan Tire Corp., 566 F.3d at 1380-82; In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1575, or that a less similar reference cannot, see, e.g., Durling, 101 F.3d at 103-04; Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391. 3 Alternatively, the district court could have relied on the V2 jersey as the primary reference. The only differences between the V2 jersey and the claimed design MRC INNOVATIONS, INC. v. HUNTER MFG., LLP 11