Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Patent Law

: Patently Obvious

Design Patents: Claim Construction Rules Lead to Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement

By Dennis Crouch, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

One question to be answered in the upcoming Egyptian Goddess en banc rehearing is whether Markman style claim construction should apply to design patent cases. George Raynal, an associate at the Saidman firm, took a look at the practical impact of such claim construction: summary judgment.

by George Raynal

The effect of applying Markman to design patent claim construction prior to determining infringement has resulted in an overwhelming likelihood that an accused infringer will bring a successful motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

In a survey, 63 design patent infringement cases have been identified since Markman was first applied to a design patent claim in Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Of these, the accused infringer moved for summary judgment of non-infringement in 43 cases. The movant was successful in 31 (72%)[1] of those 43 cases, whereas the motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was denied only 12[2] times. Of the successful 31, ten[3] were appealed and only one[4] of those ten was reversed because the court could not agree that no reasonable jury could find infringement based on the record.

Additionally, summary judgment of infringement has been granted in only four design patent infringement cases since Elmer.[5] A motion for summary judgment of infringement has been denied once.[6]

[1] Arminak and Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 501 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. 498 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc. 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006); C olida v. Sharp Electronics Corp. 125 Fed.Appx. 993 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Intern., Inc., 393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Technologies, 121 Fed.Appx. 388 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Colida v. Ericsson, Inc., 93 Fed.Appx. 220 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Minka Lighting, Inc. v. Craftmade Intern., Inc., 93 Fed. Appx. 214 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Co’s., Inc., 217 F.3d 849 (Table – unpub. Fed. Cir. 1999);OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Sada v. Jack In The Box, Inc., 2006 WL 1149159 (W.D.Tex. 2006); Sharper Image Corp. v. Target Corp., 425 F.Supp.2d 1056 (N.D.Cal. 2006); Igbinadolor v. Sony Corp. of Amer., 2005 WL 1719964 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner Intern., L.L.C., 2005 WL 354103 (E.D.Pa. 2005); Colida v. Sony Corp. of Amer., 2005 WL 267231 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Colida v. NEC USA, Inc., 2005 WL 267417 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Lawman Armor Corp. v. Master Lock Co., 2004 WL 440177 (E.D.Pa. 2004); Puritan-Bennett Corp. v. Penox Technologies, Inc., 2004 WL 866618 (S.D.Ind. 2004); Tecumseh Products Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 295 F.Supp.2d 902 (E.D.Wis. 2003); Spotless Enterprises, Inc. v. A & E Products Group L.P., 294 F.Supp.2d 322 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Cinna, S.A. v. Futura S.R.L., 2003 WL 22671466 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Norseman Plastics Ltd. Inc., 2003 WL 25667625 (C.D.Cal. 2003); Street Flyers LLC. v. Gen-X Sports, Inc., 2003 WL 21998960 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Mann Design Ltd. v. Farnam Companies, Inc., 2003 WL 1572008 (D.Minn. 2003); Fanimation Design & Mnfg., Inc. v. Emerson Elec. Co., 2003 WL 1906093 (S.D.Ind. 2003); Hosley Intern. Trading Corp. v. K Mart Corp., 237 F.Supp.2d 907 (N.D.Ill.,2002); Schnadig Corp. v. Collezione Europa U.S.A., 2002 WL 31253750 (N.D.Ill. 2002); Boone Supply Co. v. Cambria County Ass'n for the Blind, 2002 WL 1796970 (S.D.W.Va. 2002); Metrokane, Inc. v. Wine Enthusiast, 185 F.Supp.2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Golan v. Pingel, 1999 WL 33633104 (C.D.Cal. 1999); Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Company, 1996 WL 332449 (N.D.Ill. 1996).

[2] Nichia Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., 2007 WL 2428040 (N.D.Cal. 2007); National Diamond Syndicate, Inc. v. Flanders Diamond USA, Inc., 264 F.Supp.2d 631 (N.D.Ill. 2003); ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Panduit Corp., 200 F.Supp.2d 1022 (D.Minn.,2002); Lentek Intern. Inc. v. Sharper Image Corp., 164 F.Supp.2d 1302 (N.D.Fla. 2001); Lakewood Engineering and Mfg. Co. v. Lasko Metal Products Inc., 2001 WL 1012573 (N.D.Ill. 2001); Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, 2001 WL 951582 (D.Minn. 2001); New L&N and Marketing, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 2000 WL 730350 (E.D.Pa. 2000); Superior Merchandise Co., Inc. v. M.G.I. Wholesale, Inc., 2000 WL 322779 (E.D.La. 2000); Five Star Mfg., Inc. v. Ramp Lite Mfg., Inc., 44 F.Supp.2d 1149 (D.Kan. 1999); Black & Decker Inc. v. Cedarberg Industries, Inc., 1998 WL 526534 (N.D.Ill. 1998); Superior Merchandise Co., Inc. v. M.G.I. Wholesale, Inc., 1999 WL 977365 (E.D.La. 1999); Moen Inc. v. Foremost Intern. Trading, Inc., 38 F.Supp.2d 680 (N.D.Ill. 1999).

[3] Arminak and Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 501 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. 498 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc. 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006); C olida v. Sharp Electronics Corp. 125 Fed.Appx. 993 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Intern., Inc., 393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Technologies, 121 Fed.Appx. 388 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Colida v. Ericsson, Inc., 93 Fed.Appx. 220 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Minka Lighting, Inc. v. Craftmade Intern., Inc., 93 Fed. Appx. 214 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Co’s., Inc., 217 F.3d 849 (Table – unpub. Fed. Cir. 1999);OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)

[4] Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc. 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006); C olida v. Sharp Electronics Corp. 125 Fed.Appx. 993 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

[5] Superior Merchandise Co., Inc. v. M.G.I. Wholesale, Inc., 1999 WL 977365 (E.D.La. 1999); Moen Inc. v. Foremost Intern. Trading, Inc., 38 F.Supp.2d 680 (N.D.Ill. 1999); Contessa Food Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Unidynamics Corp. v. Automatic Products Intern., Ltd., 157 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1998).