Walter E. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.
40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1788, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1788, 101 F.3d 100 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To invalidate a design patent for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a party must first find a single prior art reference (a "primary reference") that creates basically the same overall visual impression as the claimed design. Without such a primary reference, an obviousness analysis based on combining multiple prior art references is improper.
Facts:
- Walter E. Durling, a freelance furniture designer, was hired in the spring of 1991 by Global Furniture Company (Global) to design a low-cost sectional sofa group.
- Durling conceived of a design for a sectional sofa with a corner table and integral end tables.
- Global manufactured and sold furniture embodying Durling's design until Global went out of business in the spring of 1992.
- After Global closed, a former customer asked Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc. (Spectrum) to manufacture the same furniture.
- Spectrum received approval from Global's former president and began producing and selling furniture embodying Durling's design.
- In August 1992, Durling filed an application for a design patent on his sofa design, which was issued in September 1993 as the '243 patent.
Procedural Posture:
- Walter E. Durling sued Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
- Spectrum asserted as a defense that Durling's patent was invalid for obviousness in view of prior art, primarily the 'Schweiger model.'
- The district court (trial court) found that the differences between the prior art and the patent were insignificant.
- The district court held that the sole claim of Durling's patent was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
- Durling (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States 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:
Does a prior art design qualify as a primary reference for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if it shares the same general design concept as the patented design but creates a different overall visual impression?
Opinions:
Majority - Clevenger, Circuit Judge.
No. A prior art design does not qualify as a primary reference for an obviousness analysis if it creates a different overall visual impression from the patented design, even if it shares the same general design concept. The ultimate inquiry under § 103 for a design patent is whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill, which requires comparing the overall visual appearance of the designs, not their underlying concepts. The court reasoned that the first step in an obviousness analysis is to find a single primary reference in the prior art that is "basically the same" as the claimed design. Only after finding such a reference can one proceed to modify it with secondary references. The district court erred by focusing on the general concept of a sectional sofa with integrated end tables rather than the specific visual appearance of Durling's design. A detailed comparison revealed significant visual differences between Durling's patented design (with its triangular corner table and upward-sweeping front rail) and the Schweiger model (with its curved corner sofa section and horizontally-wrapping front rail). Because the Schweiger model did not create "basically the same" visual impression, it could not serve as a primary reference, and the invalidity judgment based on obviousness was therefore improper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical role of the 'primary reference' test as a threshold requirement in design patent obviousness cases. It clarifies that a challenger cannot invalidate a patent by simply combining elements from various prior art references that share a design concept; they must first identify a single reference that is visually very similar to the patented design as a whole. This holding strengthens design patents by protecting them from challenges based on abstract concepts rather than concrete visual appearances. The ruling also mandates that trial courts provide detailed verbal descriptions of the visual designs at issue to create a reviewable record for appellate courts.
Unlock the full brief for Walter E. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.