Examples of Design Patent Non-Infringement
John Wilson • April 21, 2020
Examples of Design Patent Non-Infringement
Given the prior art it can often be difficult to tell if a viable claim for design patent infringement can be maintained against manufacturers of similar products.
Test For Design Patent Infringement
The primary test for determining infringement of a design patent was established in the seminal design patent infringement case, Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871). In Gorham, the United States Supreme Court declared that infringement of a design patent occurs if: “in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same.” In 2008, a Federal Circuit court held that the “ordinary observer test,” as established in Gorham, is the sole test for determining design patent infringement; however, the determination must be “conducted in light of the prior art.” If a design patent is substantially similar to prior art, then the differences between the design patent and the potentially-infringing products will be accentuated. Therefore, the appropriate test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer would consider two designs substantially the same, considering the prior art.
Design patent infringement is highly contingent on prior art. Therefore, the relevant prior art must be considered when analyzing the viability of claims against potential infringers. 35 U.S.C. §102(b) identifies that prior art may consist of an invention that “was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.”
Examples of Design Patent Non-Infringement
Although design patent infringement is determined on a case-by-case basis, examples of prior decisions may be used as a guideline to predict potential outcomes of future design patent infringement cases. The following examples used the “ordinary observer” test to determine that a design patent had been found not too infringe.
The Federal Circuit Court in Richardson found no infringement in a case that involved a tool which combined three tools into one – a hammer, jaw, and crowbar – because the overall appearances of the designs were not substantially the same. Figure 4 displays a side-by-side comparison of the products at issue with the relevant prior art.
Richardson v. Stanley Works 597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Although the district court in Victor Stanley held that a bench end featuring accentuated curvature to the legs infringed the ‘623 patent, the same court held that another bench end featuring accentuated curvature to the legs did not infringe the ‘623 patent. The latter design featured an oval below the seat, from which the court determined that the bench end created “a different and distinctive look that would not confuse the ordinary observer.” Specifically, the court stated: “[e]ach of the individual ornamental elements may be almost identical in isolation, but the overall impression is aesthetically different.” Figure 5 displays a side-by-side comparison of the products at issue.
Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe, 2011 LEXIS 112846 (D.Md. 2011)
Although the prior art in Victor Stanley featured a looped arm rest and curved bench legs, both the ‘623 patent and the infringing design featured accentuated curvature of the legs, which was the distinguishing feature of the ‘623 patent and the prior art.
Given the prior art it can often be difficult to tell if a viable claim for design patent infringement can be maintained against manufacturers of similar products.
Challenge Texas personal jurisdiction with a Rule 120a special appearance. Learn how to challenge Texas personal jurisdiction with a Rule 120a special appearance, what counts as “minimum contacts,” and why emails, payments, or a single contract often aren’t enough.
Need to remove a member or exit an LLC in Texas? Wilson Legal Group P.C. drafts buyouts, resolves disputes, and ensures compliance with the TBOC.
A Texas lawyer’s guide for unmarried partners buying a home together—title options, joint mortgages, cohabitation/co-ownership agreements, death/disability planning, and how to protect your down payment and equity.
Owelty of partition in Texas: keep the home, pay out equity. Understand documents, refinancing, title priority, releases, and risks before you act.
Learn how Texas law allows you to challenge divorce property agreements based on mental incapacity, duress, or undue influence. Discover the legal standards, case examples, and how to protect your rights under Texas contract law.
Unjust Enrichment in Texas—Overview
Can a Parent Record a Child’s Phone Calls in Texas?
How to Overcome a Final Trademark Rejection: Your Guide to Saving Your Brand
Civil Asset Forfeiture in Texas: How Your Company Could Be at Risk—and How a Law Firm Can Help
The Wilson Legal Group are Dallas attorneys that specializes in Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets, Complex Litigation, Business/Corporate Law, Family Law and Real Estate Law. At the Wilson Legal Group, our clients are our focus. Our philosophy is simple and straight-forward: Understand our clients' needs, hopes, and interests in order to help them flourish. Our staff strives to build strong relationships with our clients in order to appreciate their best interests and help them achieve their goals.
Have an idea for a blog? Click and request a blog and we will let you know when we post it!
