Sport Dimension v. Coleman Company - Federal Circuit Seeks to Clarify Functionality

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company, Inc., No. 15-1533 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2016), seeking to clarify how courts may properly construe design claims containing significant functional aspects.  The court's decision adds some weight behind last year's Federal Circuit decision in Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., and answers a few additional questions related to design patent functionality.

In order to explain this case, we first have to see the problem.  To do that, we begin by looking back to the Federal Circuit's 2010 decision, Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.  That case concerned design patent D507,167 for a multi-function tool, and an alleged infringing tool designed by Stanley, as shown below:

Samsung Appeals to the Supreme Court! ... (but probably won't get there)

It's not every day that the New York Times reports on design patent news.  But when it does, it usually has something to do with smartphones.  

The big news in design patent law today is Samsung's inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court from its August loss (mostly) at the Federal Circuit.  Just last week, Apple and Samsung appeared to finally be putting this lawsuit behind them, when it was announced that Samsung had agreed to pay Apple $548,176,477 to satisfy the judgment entered by Judge Koh and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.  However, in the agreement, Samsung had reserved its right to "reimbursement" if the judgment is reversed.  

In its petition for writ of certiorari, Samsung points out two alleged errors by the Federal Circuit - 1) whether the Federal Circuit should have "factored out" the allegedly functional aspects of Apple's design patents, and 2) whether the Federal Circuit erred by not apportioning Samsung's profits between the profits attributable to the infringing design and the profits resulting from other aspects of the infringing products. 

Of course, Samsung worded the questions presented somewhat differently:

The questions presented are:

1. Where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope?

2. Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?

Regardless of how Samsung chooses to articulate the issues, however, a Supreme Court hearing seems unlikely, in the opinion of this author.  

With respect to the first issue, the Federal Circuit did an excellent job of clarifying its own, somewhat confusing precedent from cases like Richardson v. Stanley Works.  In Apple v. Samsung, the court explained that that the functional aspect of a claim may be conceptually factored out as part of claim construction without literally "exclud[ing] those components in their entirety."  See our earlier post on this topic here.  This pronouncement of the law will help simplify design patent claim construction, while emphasizing to juries and judges that designs do not protect functional concepts, only the appearance of an article of manufacture. 

With respect to the third issue, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would attempt to blatantly overrule the clear, expressed wishes of Congress.  Samsung seems to argue that § 289 is just "really old."  But it's unclear why the Supreme Court's analysis of this argument would be any different from the Federal Circuit's:

In reciting that an infringer “shall be liable to the owner to the extent of [the infringer’s] total profit,” Section 289 explicitly authorizes the award of total profit from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design. Several other courts also concluded that Section 289 authorizes such award of total profit. ... The clear statutory language prevents us from adopting a “causation” rule as Samsung urges.

So while its exciting to see design patents in the news, don't hold your breath for the first Supreme Court design patent case in 100+ years.  Of course, we could be wrong and, if we are, we will be the first to celebrate. 

Apple v. Samsung Oral Arguments, Part I - Functionality and Markman

If you haven't had time to listen to the Federal Circuit arguments in the Apple v. Samsung case last week, don't worry.  The Ordinary Observer has you covered.  We will be examining the arguments in two parts.  Part I will take a look at the functionality discussion that dominated the hearing.  Part II will examine the arguments relating to apportionment.

Samsung began its presentation last Thursday by focusing on functionality, in the context of design patent infringement, and whether the district court was justified in providing the following jury instruction:

If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the overall appearance of an accused Samsung design is substantially the same as the overall appearance of the claimed Apple design patent, and that the accused design was made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported within the United States, you must find that the accused design infringed the claimed design.

Samsung complains that Judge Koh failed to "filter out" the allegedly functional elements of Apple's design patents for the jury and failed to offer a jury instruction directing the jury's attention to the "ornamental" aspects of the claim as opposed to the "overall appearance of the claimed Apple design patent":

Kathleen Sullivan (counsel for Samsung): ... As given, the infringement instruction ... instructs the jury to compare the overall appearance of the Samsung and Apple Designs.  Your Honor, crucially, what's missing there is the word "ornamental." You're right that earlier in the invalidity instructions she refers to the term "ornamental."  But the invalidity instructions can't cure the problem with the infringement innstruction.  ... Your honor, we're not saying that there should have been exact, magic words.  We gave her multiple choices, we said "please define the difference between functional and ornamental."  We said "please district court, take out these few things that Apple has admitted are functional..."  As Egyptian Goddess says, the district court has discretion how to distinguish functional from ornamental, but it does not have discretion whether to distinguish functional from ornamental... 

The Court:  What do we do about about the case law that says that your'e supposed to look at the overall design and you're not supposed to just take ornamental features in isolation? 

Sullivan: Your Honor, what you do is say "overall ornamental appearance."  The crucial problem here is that the jury was not instructed to, nor was there any claim construction limiting it to comparing the overall ornamental appearance. 

The problem with Samsung's argument is that it urges the court to turn the question of functionality, for purposes of infringement (i.e. claim construction), over to the jury.  Obviously, that approach would conflict with the Supreme Court's Markman decision, holding that claim construction is exclusively the province of the court and cannot be handed over to the jury.  

As a reminder, functionality can come up in design patent litigation in two contexts: invalidity and infringement.  In the invalidity context, the question for the jury is whether the design is functional as opposed to ornamental.  If the design is dictated solely by function, as opposed to ornamentation, it is invalid for failing to meet the ornamental requirement of § 171.  In the infringement context, courts sometimes seek to "filter out" functional aspects of the claim as a matter of claim construction.  See, e.g., Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  While some have questioned the wisdom of this approach as improperly dissecting the claim, it remains a contentious issue in design patent law. 

Samsung argues that Judge Koh's instructions were improper because they failed to instruct the jury to consider only the ornamental aspects of the claim and failed to "define the difference between functional and ornamental" in the infringement context.  But such an instruction would have been tantamount to charging the jury with claim construction - here, selecting which design elements were functional and filtering them out of the claim.  In the utility patent context this would be like reading the Phillips case to a jury and then instructing them to evaluate infringement "applying the proper claim scope."  That would be reversible error.

If there was any error in the jury charge, it would have been in Judge Koh's decision not to construe the functional limitations of the claim, at all.  To the extent functionality was really at issue in the infringement context, it was Judge Koh's job to construe the patent, not he jury's.

The Federal Circuit has given conflicting guidance on a trial court's "discretion" in construing "functional and non-functional elements."  In Egyptian Goddess, a case we have addressed several times, the court stated that "where a design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design as shown in the patent."  Yet, in the next paragraph, the court also said "[w]e therefore leave the question of verbal characterization of the claimed designs to the discretion of trial judges..."  It is curious that Judge Koh would send the question of design patent functionality (in the validity context) to the jury but simultaneously decline to construe any functional elements of the claim.  If there was a question of material fact as to whether any of the design patents were functional, as a whole, isn't there necessarily a question of fact as to whether individual design elements are functional?

The answer may come down to the extent of Judge Koh's discretion in construing the design patent (or not). Trial judges may have discretion to determine whether the functional limitations, if present, would improperly impact the jury's consideration of the overall ornamental design.  For example, with utility patents, judges are not obliged to construe every conceivably disputed claim term and always have some level of discretion. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F. 3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Claim construction is ... to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy.").  Judge Koh likely used her discretion to decline to spell out what was ornamental vs. what was functional for the jury if she believed that the allegedly functional elements of the design would not meaningfully impact the jury's determination of infringement.

The Federal Circuit has an opportunity to clarify a district court's discretion in construing a design patent to "filter out" functional limitations.  As with any claim construction issue, district courts ought to be allowed some independence in determining when design patent claim construction is "necessary" or would otherwise be more helpful than harmful for the trier of fact.  This should include the discretion to decline to construe the design at all, even when functionality is at issue in the validity context. 

Doorman v. Paccar - For Design Patents, Inter Partes Review is Non-Functional

Sometimes lawyers learn more from their failures than their successes, and this has proven to be true in the context of inter partes review of design patents.  Since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board launched the IPR program in 2012, there have been only a handful of design patent decisions, but with each new decision, we learn a bit more about how the PTAB will approach design patents. 

Last Friday, the PTAB handed down a decision in Doorman Prods., Inc. v. Paccar, Inc., IPR2014-00542, 2014 WL 4444041 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Sept. 5, 2014).  In its decision, the Board denied Doorman's Petition to institute an inter partes review, but it is the Board's reasoning that was noteworthy.  Below is an image from Paccar's U.S. Patent No. 525,731, which was the subject of the petition. 

First, the Board categorically rejected Doorman's request to filter out functional elements within the design in the context of claim construction.  The Board curiously found that the "Petitioner conflates invalidity based on functionality under 35 U.S.C. § 171 with invalidity based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103" and held that the it had no authority to entertain a functionality challenge to the design patent:

Further, a challenge based on functionality under 35 U.S.C. § 171 is not permitted in an inter partes review because it is not based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 nor is it based on prior art that consists of a patent or printed publication. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b)(2). Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the allegedly functional elements identified by Petitioner (Pet. 12) must be considered in an obviousness analysis of the visual impression created by the patented design as a whole (Prelim. Resp. 26). 

Id. at  *3.

The Board appears to have badly misconstrued the Petitioner's claim construction argument with an invalidity challenge under § 171.  The Board's decision to construe the Petitioner's claim construction argument as a validity argument seems to be out of step with the Board's requirement to apply the "broadest reasonable construction."  Furthermore, it directly contradicts the Federal Circuit's guidance on design patent claim construction.  See OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (if "a design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design.").  Whatever the "broadest reasonable construction" means in design patent cases before the PTAB, it must at least be as broad as the construction that would be provided in the context of a district court litigation.  

The Patent Office's failure to appreciate how design patents are being construed in the district courts has led to a strange double standard wherein design patents are construed much more narrowly at the Patent Office then they are in litigation.  IPR may be an interesting venue for bringing this issue to a head and encouraging the Patent Office and the Board to consider modernizing its view of the broadest reasonable construction for designs, in light of how they are being construed, in practice. 

In Doorman, the Board's failure to consider functionality in the context of claim construction led to disastrous results for the Petitioner.  The Board ultimately concluded that the Petitioner's primary reference, Kobayashi, "does not include a side Lamp D, striations, and a checkered surface pattern as shown in the patented design," id. at *5, and therefore could not serve as a primary reference.    But these were the same features that Doorman argued were functional in claim construction.  Whatever the merits of the Petitioner's functionality argument were, they appeared to be central to its Petition, and the Board's refusal to even consider filtering out functional elements would appear to be a clear error of law.  

Nevertheless, while Doorman remains the law of the PTAB, design patent practitioners would be wise not to rely on PTAB claim construction to filter out functional elements of design patent in IPR Petitions.  

For those who are curious, below is an image of Paccar's '731 Patent alongside the proposed primary reference, U.S. Design Patent No. 498,859 to Kobayashi.  Basically the same?

Judge Wright Gets it Right on Design Patent Claim Construction

On Friday, Judge Otis D. Wright issued an always-risky claim construction order in the case of Carlini Enterprises, Inc. v. Paul Yaffe Design, Inc., which we first reported on last October.  This case involves two design patents for bike handles which allegedly cover Carlini's "Evil Apes" and "Gangster Apes" handlebar designs, although Yaffe disputes this fact through its false marking counterclaim.  The design patents-in-suit are U.S. Design Patent Nos. 629,343 and 604,212, shown below:

As we have previously noted, claim construction in design patent cases has become a rather sticky issue since the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Egyptian Goddess.  In that watershed case, the Federal Circuit famously did away with the old “point of novelty” test, returning the ordinary observer test to its rightful place as the sole test for design patent infringement.  See Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).  However, in a less noted portion of the Egyptian Goddess decision, the Federal Circuit opined on the issue of claim construction, stating that “the preferable course ordinarily will be for a district court not to attempt to ‘construe’ a design patent claim by providing a detailed verbal description of the claim language.” Id.  The court reasoned that “a design is better represented by an illustration ‘than it could be by any description and a description would probably not be intelligible without the illustration.’”  Id. (quoting Dobson v. Dorman, 118 U.S. 10, 14 (1886)).

There is an implicit conflict between Egyptian Goddess and the Federal Circuit's other decisions regarding design patent claim construction, such as  OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997), where the Court held that if "a design contains both functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed in order to identify the non-functional aspects of the design."  This contradicting guidance has left some courts confused as to when, if ever, it is appropriate to give  verbal claim construction regarding functionality.

In Carlini, Judge Wright struck a nuanced balance between the need to avoid unnecessary verbal claim constructions and the temptation to "filter" functional elements of a design patent out of the scope of the claim.  In declining to filter out any allegedly functional elements, Judge Wright reasoned that "the task of distinguishing the ornamental features from the functional ones must be tempered [because]a detailed verbal description of the claimed design may place an undue emphasis on particular features of the design and may hinder examination of the design as a whole." citing Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Yaffe had requested that the court filter out the three basic components of any motorcycle handle bars as functional, "parts, which Carlini refers to as the 'grips,' 'uprights,' and 'center section.'"  Judge Wright did not dispute that these three components provided functionality to the handlebars - "There is really no dispute that these parts provide some function. A rider must have something to hold onto—the grips—and there must be some point where the handlebar attaches to the motorcycle—the center section. The function of the uprights is to connect the grips to the center section."  However, he disagreed that evidence of function is synonymous with functionality in the design patent context and he cited the variety of bike handles available in the prior art, despite supplying this same basic functionality.

Moreover, the Court indicated that there would be no easy way to "filter out" the allegedly functional components of the handlebar, given the nature of the asserted design patents.  The Court reasoned that "it would be difficult for this Court to verbalize the design of the handlebars depicted in the patents-in-suit and separate the ornamental features from the functional ones. At the very least, a detailed verbal description would place undue emphasis on particular features of the claimed design."  The Court emphasized that "[t]he most important task is to facilitate examination of the design as a whole—ornamental and functional elements together."  (emphasis added).

In declining to issue a detailed verbal claim construction, Judge Wright appears to have struck the correct balance between the temptation to "filter out" functional elements while avoiding an unnecessary, detailed verbal claim construction.  Where, as here, the requested claim construction would impair a jury's ability to assess infringement of the claim "as a whole," the the proponent of such a construction should be required to come forth with clear evidence that the design elements are dictated by function alone.  Otherwise, such arguments are better handled in the context of a motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on functionality.  While it may still be appropriate to "filter out" purely functional design elements in the context of claim construction, such situations are rare and the resulting claim construction would always risk improperly affecting the jury's determination of infringement of the design patent "as a whole."

Apple v. Samsung – PART I - Judge Koh Weighs in on Definiteness in Design Patent Cases

This week provided two new design patent decisions in the Apple v. Samsung saga and a notice of review the ITC decision made in October of 2012.  The two decisions, by Judge Lucy Koh (S.D.C.A.),touch on important areas of design patent law, so we will be presenting our analysis in a two-part series. Today’s post discusses Judge Koh’s decision on Samsung’s Motion for invalidity of Apple’s design patents based on indefiniteness.