a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it as the Wilson Whitaker Rynell Logo

Examples of Design Patent Infringement

John Wilson • April 17, 2019

Examples of Design Patent Infringement

a large light bulb is hanging from the ceiling in a room .

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 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 infringed. 


The Federal Circuit court in a Crocs case entered a judgment of infringement against ITC noting that a “side-by-side comparisons of the…products suggest that an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused products are the same as the patented design” Specifically, the Federal Circuit court explained that “minor differences between a patented design and an accused article’s design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement.” The figure below displays a side-by-side comparison of the two products at issue in the case.

a black and white drawing of a crocs shoe
Crocs v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

The Federal District Court of Maryland in Victor Stanley held that the manufacturers of a park bench infringed upon a prior design patent because “an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, would be unable to easily distinguish them in a side-by-side comparison without unusually careful effort.” The figure below displays a side-by-side comparison of the products.  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.  
a drawing of a bench and a picture of a bench
Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe, 2011 LEXIS 112846 (D.Md. 2011)
Person placing a red house on a Monopoly board with other houses.
By John Wilson August 13, 2025
Owelty of partition in Texas: keep the home, pay out equity. Understand documents, refinancing, title priority, releases, and risks before you act.
Person signing a document with a fountain pen. The word
By John Wilson August 8, 2025
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.
Cowboy in a suit and hat carrying a rifle, standing outdoors against a rocky backdrop.
By John Wilson August 5, 2025
Unjust Enrichment in Texas—Overview
A little girl is sitting at a table blowing bubbles while a man takes a picture of her.
By John Wilson July 23, 2025
Can a Parent Record a Child’s Phone Calls in Texas?
A person is holding up their hands with the words yes and no written on them.
By Chelsea Lankford July 3, 2025
How to Overcome a Final Trademark Rejection: Your Guide to Saving Your Brand
A model house , keys , coins and money on a table.
By John Wilson June 19, 2025
Civil Asset Forfeiture in Texas: How Your Company Could Be at Risk—and How a Law Firm Can Help
A bartender is pouring whiskey into a glass at a bar.
By John Wilson May 6, 2025
TABC Administrative Proceedings in Texas 
Man kissing pregnant belly.
By Chelsea Lankford April 10, 2025
Texas Senate Passes Bill Requiring Retroactive Child Support from Date of Conception
A person is holding a cell phone in front of a book titled artificial intelligence
By John Wilson February 19, 2025
Copyright and Translated Content: Who Owns the Creative Rights? Understanding Copyright Law and Translation Copyright law protects creative work and bestows sole authority over the work upon the creators. For example, the owner of the work of a novel has the right over the work under the concept of the right under the copyright. Courts have found that “the degree of protection afforded by the copyright is measured by what is actually copyrightable in the publication and not by the entire publication.” See, e.g., Dorsey v. Old Sur. Life Ins. Co., 98 F.2d 872, 873 (10th Cir. 1938) (emphasis added). For translations, the situation is not very clear. Translations involve creative judgments over word translation and not the translation of mere words. Hence the knowledge about the applicability of the concept of the right over the work is essential for establishing the right over the work. For example, a Court in the Northern District of California stated that: “ the determinative question is whether Plaintiff holds a valid copyright. ” Signo Trading Intern. Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362, 363 (N.D. Cal. 1981). The Signo Trading Court dismissed Plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff did not have a valid copyright as a matter of law in the translations and transliterations at issue because they lacked the “requisite originality.” Id. at 365. Can Translation Be Considered a Creative Process? The Practice of Translating Translation goes beyond the replacement of one word by the equivalent word from the source text. Translating literary work, poetry, and fiction with deeper meanings beyond the surface text is a complex, artistic process. Translating books like The Iliad, for instance, requires the practice of artistic translation to translate the emotions, thoughts, and the culture correctly. Technical Translations and Legal Translations Conversely, technical writing and texts for the law need less creativity and instead value correctness over all else. These writing forms require strict adherence to the original sense, leaving very little room for artistic interpretation. Translations for these writing forms thus typically involve less creative contribution and less potential for the work being protected by copyright. Why Is Creativity Important for Translations for Copyright? Originality when translating For a work to be subject to copyright, some creativity, however slight, is essential. Even when the translation is taken from the work, the translation also includes some creative work by the translator. This creativity can make the translation subject to copyright. A derivative work must “recast, transform[], or adapt[]” a preexisting work and “consist[] of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship.” Id. In other words, it must change or alter the pre-existing work’s content and must itself be an original work of authorship. The Supreme Court stated that “ [t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality ” and that “ [t]o qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. ” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) at 345. “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. (citing 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990)). In granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the Signo Trading Court held that: " It is inconceivable that anyone could copyright a single word or a commonly used short phrase, in any language. It is also inconceivable that a valid copyright could be obtained for a phonetic spelling, using standard Roman letters, of such words or phrases. Although lists of words and translations of larger works may be copyrightable, Plaintiff cannot claim credit for any of the elements which make those things copyrightable. For these reasons, Plaintiff does not hold a valid copyright on the translations or transliterations ... " Signo Trading, 535 F. Supp. at 365. The Problem of the Derivative Work However, translations are generally "derivative works" - derived from the work of another. Because of this, the owner or author of the work is generally required to agree to the translation. Translations made illegally can be held under the classification of copyright violations, even when the translator has added creative elements. Who Has the Right over the Translated Work? Employer-Commissioned Translations Ownership of the copyright for the translation work varies. If the translation is commissioned by the owner of the original work, the owner will retain the right. Even when the translator adds creativity by passing over the original emotions and thoughts, the owner will not necessarily lose the right over the translation work. In some circumstances, the translation work can be accredited by the translator without them holding the right over the work. Independent Translations If a translation is performed independently by the translator, the translator can even be identified as the co-author of the translation. Nevertheless, the author typically has the underlying copyright, restricting the translator’s right over the work. Creative Translations from the Public Domain In certain cases, a translation may be creative enough to warrant its own copyright. For example, a translator adapting a classic work or a book in the public domain into modern language may introduce enough originality to qualify for copyright protection. However, direct, word-for-word translations are typically not considered original enough to receive new copyright protection. What About Machine Translations? The Human Creativity Copyright Requirement Machine-generated translations, including those produced by platforms like OpenAI , operate through advanced algorithms that replicate language patterns rather than capture the human touch. Unlike translations crafted by human translators who often infuse cultural insight and genuine emotion into the work, OpenAI's output is rooted in statistical patterns and data. Consequently, while these translations are impressively efficient and accurate, they typically fall short of the originality required for copyright protection. This distinction underscores the human creativity requirement needed to secure a valid copyright . Ultimately, although machine-generated translations serve as powerful tools, they do not offer the same legal and creative protections as those provided by human translators. The Bottom Line: Navigating Copyright in Translations Translations occupy the middle ground under the law of the copyright. Albeit the right of the original author generally has the right under the copyright, the right under the copyright can also be claimed by the translator provided the translation is creative enough. Central considerations here include the creativity the translator has added, the nature of the work being translated, and whether the work is under the public domain. These considerations establish the right of the owner under the copyright for the translation. Why Wilson Whitaker Rynell for Your Copyright Work? At Wilson Whitaker Rynell, our professional lawyers specialize in the practice of copyright law and copyright litigation , including the complex subject matter of translation work. We can provide you with advice about the ownership of your work under the provisions of the copyright, and protect your creative property. If you are the author, the publisher, or the translator, you can rely upon the advice from our firm. Copyright Translation FAQS
Show More
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.

Request A Blog?

Have an idea for a blog?  Click and request a blog and we will let you know when we post it!