Redesigned Aesthetics: Federal Appeals Court Rewisits the Laws Surrounding Design Patents in Education Sector
In the world of intellectual property, 2024 and 2025 have been marked by a series of significant decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) regarding design patents. These rulings have brought about changes to the way design patent anticipation, infringement, and obviousness are assessed.
One of the most notable decisions was in LKQ v. GM, where the CAFC reset design patent obviousness law from overly rigid threshold requirements for primary and secondary references to take a more flexible approach. The court also emphasised the need for prior art references to be analogous.
In LKQ v. GM, the court held that obviousness references must be analogous, a principle that was further reiterated in Top Brand v. Cozy Comfort Company. In this case, the court found that the patentee had surrendered its ability to rely on the surrendered claim scope in arguing for infringement.
The importance of comparison prior art in design patent infringement analysis was addressed in Columbia Sportswear N.A Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. The court explained that comparison prior art helps inform an ordinary observer's comparison between the claimed and accused designs.
In another case, Lashify, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, the court established that there is no exclusion from labor for sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution in supporting domestic industry in a Section 337 infringing import investigation.
The CAFC is currently considering challenges to district court determinations of non-infringement under the plainly dissimilar test, and arguing that when properly construed, the patented and accused designs may be similar enough to withstand disposal on a motion for summary judgment without considering the prior art.
In August, the Federal Circuit decided ABC Corp. I v. Schedule A, confirming its 2022 related case instruction that "where a dominant feature of the patented design and the accused products appears in the prior art, the focus of infringement will be on other features of the design."
Several more decisions are anticipated in 2025, including Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG), Inc. v. Opti-Luxx Inc., Range of Motion Products v. Armaid Co., and a request for rehearing in North Star Tech Int'l Ltd. v. Latham Pool Prods.
In North Star Tech Int'l Ltd. v. Latham Pool Prods, the district court granted Latham's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, reasoning that Latham's pool is plainly dissimilar to North Star's design patent. North Star has requested rehearing, arguing that the "sufficiently distinct" analysis has no objective guidance to meaningfully assess summary judgment.
In Top Brand v. Cozy Comfort Co. LLC, the court granted judgment as a matter of law after a jury found infringement because the accused design was within the scope of the subject matter surrendered during prosecution.
These decisions highlight the ongoing evolution of design patent law and the importance of careful prosecution and consideration of prior art in design patent cases. As these cases make their way through the courts, it will be interesting to see how they shape the future of design patent law.
Read also:
- Exploring Harry Potter's Lineage: Decoding the Enigma of His Half-Blood Ancestry
- Elon Musk Acquires 26,400 Megawatt Gas Turbines for Powering His AI Project, Overlooks Necessary Permits for Operation!
- U Power's strategic collaborator UNEX EV has inked a Letter of Intent with Didi Mobility to deploy UOTTA(TM) battery-swapping electric vehicles in Mexico.
- Global Gaming Company, LINEUP Games, Moves Into Extensive Global Web3 Multi-Platform Gaming Network
