Revised Design Principles: Fed Court Re-examines School-related Design Patents
In the realm of intellectual property, 2025 has been a significant year for design patents, with several key court decisions shaping the landscape. Here's a roundup of some of the most notable cases.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made a series of decisions that have set important precedents. One such case is Lashify, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, where it was established that there is no exclusion from labor when the human activity employed is for sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, or distribution in a Section 337 infringing import investigation.
Another significant case is Top Brand v. Cozy Comfort Co. LLC, where the court confirmed that a patentee may surrender claim scope by its representations to the patent office during prosecution. The case also 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.
The CAFC also addressed the importance of comparison prior art in design patent infringement analysis in Columbia Sportswear N.A. Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. The court emphasised the importance of considering prior art in cases where the claimed design and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar.
In North Star Tech Int'l Ltd. v. Latham Pool Prods., the court found no reversible error in a district court's grant of Latham's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The case reiterated that a patent holder cannot monopolize common ornamental pool features or functional pool features by registering a combination of those features as a design patent.
In the case of In re SurgiSil, it was determined that a design claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim; it does not broadly cover a design in the abstract. The claim is limited to lip implants and does not cover other articles of manufacture.
Dynamite Marketing, Inc. v. The WowLine, Inc. affirmed the dismissal as to correction of inventorship and found substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict that the design patent is not invalid for functionality and in support of the jury's infringement verdict.
The CAFC is currently developing jurisprudence on prior art for design patent infringement, including the dominant feature from the prior art and arguing around prior art and surrendering claim scope.
In addition to these cases, 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.
These decisions underscore the ongoing evolution of design patent law and the importance of understanding the nuances of these complex legal issues. As always, it's crucial for businesses and individuals involved in design patent matters to stay informed and seek professional advice to protect their intellectual property rights.
Read also:
- Development of Restaurant Apps: Expenses and Essential Elements
- Indian Oil Corporation's Panipat Refinery secures India's inaugural ISCC CORSIA accreditation for Sustainable Aviation Fuel production
- Ford Bets on an Affordable Electric Pickup Revolution with a $30,000 Design
- Rapid Charging Stations for Electric Vehicles Avoiding Grid Overload
