Design Patents on the Rebound

Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc., [06-1096, -1129](January 8, 2007)[SCHALL, Lourie, and Rader] The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of non-infringement and remanded the case.
SIGNIFICANCE: Design patent infringement is determined as a whole, and not piece by piece.
BRIEF: A design patent protects the non-functional aspects of an ornamental design as seen as a whole and as shown in the patent. The district court concluded that Amini could not show infringement under the ordinary observer test because three specific features were lacking from Anthony’s accused product. In doing so, the Federal Circuit found error in analyzing each design element individually, instead of analyzing the design as a whole from the perspective of the ordinary observer. The Federal Circuit also found that photographs of the accused device could be sufficient proof of infringement. Lastly, the Federal Circuit found clear error in the district court finding of lack of novelty. The Federal Circuit said that a design could be influenced by an existing design style yet still be a novel interpretation of that style. As an example, the district court found novelty in Amini’s design with a five-toed lion’s foot because lions have five toes, but the Federal Circuit pointed out that prior furniture designs only had three and four toe designs.