berk ip answer 1 - Law 275.3 Intro to IP - Prof. P....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1) Question 1 Original (O) products is appealing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Happy Toys (H) on claims of design patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and state-law unfair competition. We are considering a cross-appeal on the grant of summary judgment in favor of O on the issue of patent invalidity. The following is an analysis of each of these issues, with both our and their potential arguments, and an opinion as to the likely outcome. Design Patent Infringement A design patent protects the aesthetic appearance of a product, rather than its functional features. A design patent may be obtained for any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Appearance is primarily important for design patents, rather than functionality. These patents are issued for a 14 year term (instead of the normal 20). For a design to be patentable the PTO requires that the design be novel, original, nonobvious, ornamental, and not dictated by functional concerns. The design must make a visual impact upon the mind of the observer. Test for Infringement Infringement of a design patent is a two-pronged test. To determine if we have infringed O's design patent, we must first consider whether an "ordinary observer," using the reasonable care expected of a purchaser, would find the two products to be substantially the same. Gorham . Also, if the resemblance is done to deceive the observer, in an attempt to induce the observer to buy the infringing product, then it is infringement. Gorham. The "ordinary observer" in this case should be someone who has reaosnable familiarity with the objects and can make a reasonable comparison. Thus, the touchstone of infringement is similarity, not consumer confusion. The second prong considers the point of novelty test. Under this test, the similarity found by the ordinary observer must come from those novel elements of the patented design that distinguish it from the prior art. So, if our Rotator footballs do not appropriate the novel features of the Spinner footballs, there is no infringement. If it is found that O only used non-protectable matter for the Spinner football, without sufficient variation from the prior art, we have not infringed. It is unclear if a design patent can be infringed by a non-competing or unrelated product, but the Federal Circuit has not precluded infringement. This indicates that some form of a quasi- Doctrine of Equivalents may be available for design patents. Did we infringe? First, I believe it is necessary to separate out our line of foam Rotator footballs from those made of other products. In particular, it is necessary to analyze separately those meant to be thrown from those meant as sculpture. I first consider those footballs made of foam that are meant to be thrown.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2010 for the course LAW LAW6571 taught by Professor Abbott during the Spring '10 term at Florida State College.

Page1 / 10

berk ip answer 1 - Law 275.3 Intro to IP - Prof. P....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online