High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.
2012 WL 1820565 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2012) (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When assessing a design patent's validity, the obviousness inquiry must be conducted from the perspective of a designer of ordinary skill in the art, not an ordinary observer. Furthermore, a design is only invalid as functional if its overall appearance is dictated by its utilitarian purpose, not merely because individual features of the design serve a function.
Facts:
- Buyer’s Direct, Inc. (BDI) owns U.S. Design Patent No. D598,183 for the ornamental design of a slipper.
- BDI manufactures and sells slippers known as SNOO-ZIES®, which it alleges are an embodiment of the patented design.
- High Point Design LLC (High Point) manufactures and distributes similar-looking slippers called FUZZY BABBA® through various retailers.
- Upon discovering the FUZZY BABBA® slippers, BDI sent a cease and desist letter to High Point, asserting infringement of the '183 patent.
- Prior to the filing date of the '183 patent, a company named Woolrich had sold two models of footwear, the 'Penta' and the 'Laurel Hill,' which were presented as prior art.
Procedural Posture:
- High Point Design LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a declaratory judgment that its slippers did not infringe BDI's '183 patent and that the patent was invalid.
- BDI answered and asserted counterclaims for patent infringement and trade dress infringement.
- BDI also filed a third-party complaint against retailers Meijer, Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, and WalMart Stores, Inc., alleging infringement.
- High Point and the retailers filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement, and for judgment on the pleadings regarding BDI's trade dress claims.
- The district court granted the motion, holding the '183 patent invalid on summary judgment for being both obvious and primarily functional.
- The district court also dismissed BDI's trade dress claims with prejudice.
- BDI (appellant) appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a district court's grant of summary judgment holding a design patent invalid for obviousness and functionality erroneous when it applies an 'ordinary observer' standard rather than an 'ordinary designer' standard for the obviousness inquiry and assesses the function of individual features rather than the overall design for the functionality inquiry?
Opinions:
Majority - Schall, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A district court's grant of summary judgment holding a design patent invalid is erroneous when it applies incorrect legal standards for both obviousness and functionality. For obviousness, the court erred by applying an 'ordinary observer' standard instead of the required 'designer of ordinary skill' standard, which is contrary to established precedent. The court also failed to properly conduct the two-step obviousness analysis from Durling v. Spectrum Furniture, as it did not provide a sufficient verbal description of the claimed design or a comparative analysis explaining why the prior art was 'basically the same.' Additionally, the court wrongly disregarded BDI's expert declaration and failed to consider secondary factors of nonobviousness, such as commercial success and copying. For functionality, the court erred by analyzing whether individual features of the slipper served a function (e.g., fleece provides warmth), rather than determining if the 'overall appearance' of the article was dictated by its function. The proper inquiry distinguishes between the functionality of an article and the functionality of its specific design.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and reinforces the distinct legal standards for evaluating the validity of design patents, providing crucial guidance for lower courts. By mandating the 'ordinary designer' standard for obviousness, it separates the validity analysis from the infringement analysis (which uses the 'ordinary observer' test), thereby protecting patents from being invalidated by a layperson's impression. The ruling on functionality reinforces that ornamental designs on utilitarian articles are protectable, preventing invalidation simply because design elements also perform a function. This case strengthens the position of design patent holders and sets a higher, more specific analytical bar for defendants seeking to invalidate a design patent on summary judgment.
Unlock the full brief for High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.