Enriching Life Through Innovative Ideas SM

DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT TEST

notes-514998_1920-300x197.jpg

Design patents are obtained to protect the ornamental design, or appearance, of a particular object of manufacture, asopposed to the more common utility patents that protect useful products, processes, or compositions of matter. An appropriate test for infringement on a design patent has been refined over the years, though with difficulty due to the aesthetic nature of a design. 

In 1872, Gorham v. White established the main test that has governed design patent infringement since. Called the “ordinary observer test”, it basically states that if an ordinary observer finds a design to be similar enough to another to cause the observer to purchase it supposing it were the other, that design is infringing. However, due to difficulty of application, the federal circuit added a second test required for infringement, called the “point of novelty test” in 1984 with Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. This required that the accused device must contain substantially the same points of novelty as that of the patented design that distinguished it from the prior art.

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.

The efficacy of this two-pronged test was brought into question in 2008 when the federal circuit court reviewed Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. contended that Swisa, Inc. infringed on their patent for a nail buffer design.

The case initially went to trial before the U.S, District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which found non-infringement by Swisa. The court stated that the patent holder must pass both the ordinary observer test and the points of novelty test, and concluded Swisa’s allegedly infringing product did not incorporate the point of novelty of the patented product, namely, the fourth bare side to the nail buffer.

Upon re-hearing the case, the federal circuit court addressed several questions to the parties, including whether the point of novelty test should continue to be used as a test for infringement of a design patent and how the point of novelty test should be administered, particularly when numerous features of the design differ from certain prior art designs.

The federal circuit court unanimously held the point of novelty test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement and the ordinary observer test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed on. The decision recognized that the point of novelty test was unnecessary because prior art can be considered as part of the ordinary observer test, and set forth the test used for design patent infringement today.

Application of the Ordinary Observer Test

The ordinary observer test discusses situations when the claimed design and the accused design will be sufficiently distinct or not plainly dissimilar. In instances where the claimed design and the accused design are sufficiently distinct, the patent owner has not met its burden of proving the two designs would appear ‘substantially the same” to the ordinary observer. Where the claimed design and accused design are not plainly dissimilar, a court will compare the claimed design and accused design with the prior art.

In design patent infringement cases, courts place the burden of proof on the patent owner to prove infringement. However, if the accused infringer relies on the comparison to prior art as part of its defense, courts will place the burden of producing such prior art on the accused infringer.

FindLaw Network

What Our Clients Say

Starting a new business can be a bit scary. Aside from worries of failure, there’s also the hassle of making sure all legal paperwork are properly filed. I reached out to Mr. Wang (Tommy) because of his excellent reviews and reputation and I am so glad I did. He was thorough and meticulous in answering all of my concerns and took time to find out special laws and policies regarding the kind of business I am starting. I could focus on the daily practical side of starting my new office without worry because I felt Tommy was reliable and took my case seriously. My business is opened and it’s all been a smooth start because of Tommy’s help. I have plans to start another business venture in the next few years and I already know I’ll be coming back to Wang IP Law.

The Shindig W.

I came to Tommy for help reviewing a licensing agreement I had secured with a well-known manufacturer. Tommy made sure I understood all the details in the contract and he negotiated with the company to improve my side of the deal. I mentioned to Tommy at my first consultation that we were looking to expand throughout the US and were investing a lot of money to make a big entrance into the market. I did not think I would have my store open so soon but Tommy also has connections with the local area and realtors to help me secure the location for my first store in the Los Angeles area. Tommy works a lot with the local businesses and he understands how to transition from the Asian market to US market. Within 8 months my store was open for business and fully operating. I must recommend Tommy to any business owners looking for help with contracts and improving their side of the deal. Tommy has the knowledge and experience to make sure there is a smooth process to open for business here, and make sure that your company is set up for success.

LI H.

I think Tommy and his team by far considered the best people to work with in my 16 business years. Beside quick responses to all my inquiries, they also done things right and providing very professional solutions. I’m highly recommending Tommy and his firm to all business owners.

Calvin C.

I have been working on my Utility Patent for almost 4 years. I have hired and fired two very reputable IP firms because with all their expertise and reputation for being some of the top firms in IP Law, I felt a lack of connection and care in my product, time and financial investment. Then I found Tommy and his team. Tommy does not waste time. He and his team are professional and extremely thorough. After 4 years, I finally found a legal team that I felt spent the time to really understand the components of my utility patent. Tommy also very mindful of cost and how and where my money would be better spent. I really feel I am in great hands with Tommy and his team. They have been patient with my revisions. And most importantly, they made me feel that they fully understood the importance this patent is to me. It has been a great and comforting pleasure working with Tommy.

G.L.

Read All