Arminak & Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc.
501 F.3d 1314 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of determining design patent infringement of a component part, the 'ordinary observer' is the purchaser of the component part itself, not the end-user of the final, assembled product into which the component is incorporated.
Facts:
- Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc. ('Calmar') and Arminak & Associates, Inc. ('Arminak') are competing businesses that sell trigger sprayers to producers of liquid household products.
- The 'shroud' is the ornamental plastic cover on the top portion of the trigger sprayer mechanism.
- In 1997, Calmar obtained two design patents, the '581 patent and the '602 patent, for trigger sprayer shroud designs.
- Calmar produced and sold a commercial embodiment of the '581 patent, known as the 'ERGO' shroud, but never produced a commercial version of the '602 patent design.
- In 2004, Arminak began selling its 'AA Trigger' sprayer, which featured a shroud design that Calmar believed was an infringement.
- Neither Calmar nor Arminak sold their trigger sprayers directly to retail consumers; they sold them to industrial purchasers or contract fillers who assembled them into final retail products, such as bottles of window cleaner.
Procedural Posture:
- Calmar informed one of Arminak's customers that it believed Arminak's 'AA Trigger' sprayer infringed Calmar's design patents.
- Arminak filed a declaratory judgment action against Calmar in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking a judicial declaration of noninfringement.
- Calmar filed a counterclaim against Arminak, alleging infringement of its '581 and '602 design patents.
- Arminak moved for summary judgment on its claim of noninfringement.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of Arminak, finding that Arminak's design did not infringe Calmar's patents.
- The district court dismissed Calmar's patent infringement counterclaims and entered judgment for Arminak.
- Calmar (Appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with Arminak as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For the purpose of determining design patent infringement, is the 'ordinary observer' of a component part, such as a trigger sprayer shroud, the industrial purchaser of that part rather than the retail consumer of the final assembled product?
Opinions:
Majority - Holderman, Chief District Judge.
Yes. For design patent infringement of a component part, the ordinary observer is the industrial purchaser of that part, not the retail consumer of the final product. The infringement analysis must focus on the actual product that is presented for purchase, which in this case is the stand-alone trigger sprayer device sold to industrial buyers. The Supreme Court in Gorham defined the ordinary observer as those who 'buy and use' the patented article, and here, the industrial purchasers are the ones who buy the shrouds and 'use' them in the assembly of the final retail product. These buyers are reasonably familiar with such objects and are not likely to be deceived, a fact conceded by Calmar's own expert who stated corporate buyers 'would be able to tell the difference easily.' Therefore, because the undisputed facts show that the industrial buyer, who is the ordinary observer, would not be confused, there is no infringement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that the 'ordinary observer' in a design patent infringement case is the direct purchaser of the patented article, even if that article is a component of a larger product sold to the public. It significantly impacts industries where patented designs are for components sold business-to-business, as it makes infringement claims more difficult to prove. By defining the observer as a more sophisticated industrial buyer rather than a less-discerning retail consumer, the court narrows the scope of infringement, as these buyers are less likely to be deceived by similar designs. This precedent requires patent holders for component parts to demonstrate potential confusion within their specific, often sophisticated, market, rather than the broader consumer market.
Unlock the full brief for Arminak & Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc.