DesignPatentInfringementafterEgyptianGoddess

WilliamFisherNovember2017

Source:https://www.law360.com/articles/576417/tests-for-design-patent-infringement-post-egyptian-goddess

Held:Noinfringement– againstthebackgroundof“crowded”priorart.WingShing Productsv.Sunbeam(SDNY2009),aff’dpercuriam,CAFC2010

PriorArt

Held:“TheCourtfindsthatanordinaryobserverofDefendants’accuseddesignswouldbeleftwiththeimpressionthatitissubstantiallydifferentfromthe‘515patent.Comparingthefiguresofthe‘515patentwiththeaccuseddesigns,theCourtdeterminesthattheoverallvisualimpressionsaredistinct,anditisreadilyapparentthatanordinaryobserverwouldnotbeconfused.Thereareseveraldifferencesthatwouldbereadilyapparenttoanordinaryobserver….”(1) silhouette;(2) Shapeoftopfinials(3) Amountofornamentation(4) Shapeoflowermedallions

Minka v.Maxim(NDTex 2009)

Denydefendant’smotionforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundthat:“Assumingthattheseexamplesarepriorart,areviewoftheseimagesrevealsthatanordinaryobserver,familiarwiththesedesigns,couldstillbedeceivedintobelievingthattheaccusedproductisthesameasthepatenteddesign.Infact,ahypotheticalordinaryobserverwouldlikelyattachmoreimportancetoatleastoneaspectoftheclaimeddesignwhenviewedinthecontextofCHF'spriorartexamples—thefolds thatstackandcascadeslightlyupwardsatthebottomofthe '651 and '039 designs'shadewhentheshadeisraised.Thisfeatureisalsoin[defendant’s]Pole-TopRomanShadeandislargelywhyanordinaryobservercouldbedeceivedintobelievingthattheaccusedproductisthesameasthepatenteddesign.”Smithv.CHF(SDNY2011)

Sourcefortheimages:https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/five-years-later-did-egyptian-goddess-live-up-to-the-hype.html

PriorArt

DesignPatent

Defendant

DesignPatentD480,817:“AboveGroundSwimmingPool”

Held:“[N]noreasonablejurorcouldfindthatanordinaryobserverwouldconcludethatthetaller,moreelegantaccusedpoolembodiesthesquatpoolplaintiffpatented,oranycolorableimitationthereof.”Sofpool v.Kmart,No.10-cv-3333(EDCA2013)

Source:https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/five-years-later-did-egyptian-goddess-live-up-to-the-hype.html

Wallace(CAFC2016),Step1

CAFC(nonprecedential ruling)

“ThedistrictcourtproperlyfoundthattheD’990patent’sdesignandtheaccusedproductareplainlydissimilar.Bathbrusheswithagenerallyroundedheadandroughlycylindricalhandlewereshowninthepriorart,andthecurvedshapeofthehandle,theangledconnectionbetweenthehandleandbrush,theovoiddesignofthehead,andthesurfacedetailsaresuchthatanordinaryobserverviewingbothdesignswouldnotconfuseoneproductfortheother.”

Wallace(CAFC2016),Step2

CAFC(nonprecedential ruling)

“Thedistrictcourtproperlyconcludedthat,‘inlightofthesimilaritiesbetweenthe‘826patentandthe’990patent,...noreasonableordinaryobserver,familiarwiththepriorart,wouldbedeceivedintobelievingthe[Ideavillage][p]roduct isthesameasthedesigndepictedinthe’990patent.’Thedistrictcourtcorrectlyappliedthelaw,that‘differencesbetweentheclaimedandaccuseddesignsthatmightnotbenoticeableintheabstractcanbecomesignificanttothehypotheticalordinaryobserverwhoisconversantwiththepriorart.’EgyptianGoddess,543F.3dat678.”