Court Opinion

ID: 9494754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:45:33.26829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:35.614253
License: Public Domain

LOURIE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction on the ground that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining inventorship of a design patent and that the court’s determination that the Hoop brothers had proved a likelihood of success on the question of validity was therefore flawed. I would remand for a redetermination of the likelihood of success under the proper standard.
While brought by Mark and Lisa as a § 291 action seeking a determination of priority between two issued patents, the Hoop brothers counterclaimed in this case, asserted infringement by Mark and Lisa, and requested the grant of an injunction. The district court determined that the Hoop brothers were the inventors of the patented fairing design and that Mark and Lisa were infringing the brothers’ patent. The court relied on its conclusion that the original drawings made by the brothers and that made by Mark and Lisa do not “evidence an independent concept,” and that the brothers hired Mark and Lisa to refine what was their drawing. The majority has affirmed that determination. I disagree.
The undisputed facts are that the Hoop brothers made a sketch of an eagle fairing design and asked Mark and Lisa to make three-dimensional drawings and models of that design. In doing so, Mark and Lisa made a different design, one that differed from the original design of the brothers in several respects. Both parties then filed patent applications and obtained the grant of patents on the design of Mark and Lisa. The majority opinion does not note that the design that accompanied the brothers’ patent application and constituted its claim, which is illustrated in Figure 3 of the majority opinion, was Mark and Lisa’s design.
When one party conceives an invention and then asks a second party to reduce it to practice, the second party is not normally an inventor, or co-inventor, unless the second party has made significant changes in the original proposal necessary to carry out the conception. See Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460, 45 USPQ2d 1545, 1548 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“[Djepending on the scope of a patent’s claim, one of ordinary skill in the art who simply reduced the inventor’s idea to practice is not necessarily a joint inventor.”). The second party’s work may constitute a separate invention if it is different in respects that render it nonobvious and the *1009first party did not conceive of those aspects. If the parties worked together, they may be co-inventors, id., but that does not appear to be the case here. What does appear to be the case here is that the second party may have made an invention that is distinct from, and possibly separately patentable from, that of the first party’s original design.
Design patents do not claim concepts. They claim specific designs set forth in their claims, which invariably refer to the appearance of what is illustrated in the patent’s drawings. 37 C.F.R. § 1.153(a) (2001). Contrary to the conclusion of the district court, as the invention is not the concept of an eagle design, but only the specific claimed representation of that eagle, the “concept” of the design is not what one must look at in determining whether the inventions are one and the same or separate. See In re Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1064, 29 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (reversing a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because it “should have focused on actual appearances, rather than ‘design concepts’ ”). One must look at the differences between the overall appearance of the eagles to determine inventorship of the specific design. See KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450, 27 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“[I]t is the appearance of a design as a whole which is controlling in determining questions of patentability and infringement.” (quoting In re Rubinfield, 47 C.C.P.A. 701, 270 F.2d 391, 395, 123 USPQ 210, 214 (COPA 1959))). When a design is changed, the result may be a new design. See In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 1582, 8 USPQ2d 2030, 2031 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“[I]f ... the design is changed, the result is a new and different design; the original design remains just what it was. Design patents have almost no scope.”).
It is undisputed that both patents claim the same design, a design consisting of the specific appearance of the eagle shown in the patents, which is different from that in the sketch made by the Hoop brothers and identical to that made by Mark and Lisa, i.e., Figure 3 — not Figures 1 and 2. Quite possibly, one could reasonably conclude that the changes are significant enough to constitute a new design. The brothers’ design has little detail in the eyes and wings, has a fairly straight beak, and has humps in the wings near the head. In contrast, the patented design of Mark and Lisa has substantial eye and wing detail, a curved beak, and nearly straight wings adjacent the head. Without recognizing the specifics of each design, one cannot evaluate the identity or separate patenta-bility of the designs. See In re Laverne, 356 F.2d 1003, 1006-07, 148 USPQ2d 674, 677 (CCPA 1966) (“[W]e point out a number of differences ... the cumulative effect of which is unquestionably to create a different appearance.”).
The principal question in determining the validity of the Hoop brothers’ patent is whether the design claimed in that patent, which is the design Mark and Lisa made and claimed, is the same as or patentably indistinct from the sketch the brothers made and gave to Mark and Lisa, ie., whether it is the brothers’ invention. Contrary to what seemed to impress the district court, it does not matter how much or how little experience the respective parties had in the field of motorcycle fairings. Nor does it matter that the brothers may have hired Mark and Lisa to make a design, or whether, through contract or operation of law, the brothers were entitled to ownership of any invention Mark and Lisa may have made. See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 1248, 26 USPQ2d 1572, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“It is elementary that inventorship and ownership are separate issues.”). The issue here is inventorship, not ownership. What mat*1010ters in determining whether the brothers are the inventors of the claimed design is whether, from the standpoint of an ordinary designer, the claimed design is the same as or different and patentably distinct from the brothers’ original design. See In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 1215, 211 USPQ 782, 784 (Fed.Cir.1981) (adopting an “ordinary designer” standard for patentability of designs, as opposed to an “ordinary observer” test for infringement of design patents).
Because we are not designers of ordinary skill, we cannot make the conclusive factual evaluations necessary to determine whether the original brothers’ design and Mark and Lisa’s design are patentably distinct. I would therefore reverse the grant of the injunction and remand this case for the trial court to focus on the appearance of the respective designs and decide whether they are sufficiently different in a nonobviousness sense that it can be concluded that the brothers are not the inventors of the design claimed in their patent. If so, then they cannot show a likelihood of success in sustaining the validity of their patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) so as to justify the grant of the preliminary injunction.