Opinion ID: 457170
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Product Copying.

Text: 50 Cable alleges that Genmark copied the Cable night light in designing the accused infringing device and that this alleged copying is evidence of nonobviousness of the Schwartz patent. The evidence in support of the charge of copying in designing the Genmark product is ambiguous, even viewed in a light favorable to Cable. Deposition testimony of Thomas E. Corder, president of Diablo Technologies, Inc., apparently a successor of Diablo Products Corp., was offered on this point, but Genmark's own characterization of the implication of this evidence was merely that it showed that Corder had access to and analyzed the appearance of plaintiff's night light during the period he was developing the accused Diablo [later Genmark] night light. Access to, and analysis of, other products in the market is hardly rare, even in the design stages of competing devices. Access in combination with similarity can create a strong inference of copying, but here Cable, as noted by the district court, failed to submit into evidence a sample of its own device for comparative purposes in evaluating the extent of similarity. 51 The Lema declaration states that defendant [Genmark] deliberately copied plaintiff's night light when it designed its own night light, but only on information and belief, which under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) is an inadequate basis upon which to base affidavits supporting or opposing summary judgment. 13 Thus, in this instance, product copying at the design stage would be a strained inference. 52 Further, in pressing the relevance to nonobviousness of purported copying by Genmark, [a]s is often the case [Cable] failed to distinguish infringement by a defendant from that of numerous other competitors. Note, Subtests of Nonobviousness: A Nontechnical Approach to Patent Validity, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1169, 1179 n. 51 (1964) (cited in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 694, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), as relevant to the decision of the Supreme Court to include secondary indicia in the prescribed obviousness determination). It is our conclusion that more than the mere fact of copying by an accused infringer is needed to make that action significant to a determination of the obviousness issue. Accord Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1567, 224 USPQ 195, 199 (Fed.Cir.1984), where copying of a patented device, despite the failure of protracted efforts by the copyist to design a similar device, was found to be an admission of the mechanical superiority of the patented version, but not strong evidence of nonobviousness. 14 53 Rather than supporting a conclusion of obviousness, copying could have occurred out of a general lack of concern for patent property, in which case it weighs neither for nor against the nonobviousness of a specific patent. It may have occurred out of contempt for the specific patent in question, only arguably demonstrating obviousness, or for the ability or willingness of the patentee financially or otherwise to enforce the patent right, which would call for deeper inquiry. Even widespread copying could weigh toward opposite conclusions, depending on the attitudes existing toward patent property and the accepted practices in the industry in question. It is simplistic to assert that copying per se should bolster the validity of a patent. 54 We do not concur in the reasoning evidenced by the statement of the district court that it is just as likely that the similarity (assuming it exists) is more attributable to the simple obviousness of plaintiff's design rather than to defendant's deliberate mimicry. 582 F.Supp. at 97, 223 USPQ at 290. The record simply offers nothing in this regard, and the speculation involved is unwarranted. Nevertheless, in view of Cable's poor showing as to copying and in view of the barrenness of the record on the nexus between any copying arguably shown and the nonobviousness of the claimed invention, it would have been improper to give the alleged copying by Genmark much weight in the obviousness analysis. Thus, the district court treated this issue appropriately, and its comment above as to the reason for copying, if any exists, is but harmless error.