Design Patent Infringement Post-Egyptian Goddess

In the recent case of Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revised the legal standard for proving infringement in a design patent lawsuit.  Prior to this case, a patent holder would have to satisfy both the “ordinary observer” test and the “point of novelty” test to win the suit.  The first test, the ordinary observer test, examined whether an ordinary observer, paying as much attention as a customer would, might be confused into believing the allegedly infringing design was substantially the same as the patented design.  The second test, the point of novelty test, inquired whether the innovations of the patented design—the “novel” elements of the patented design that distinguished it from prior patents on similar products—were also found in the allegedly infringing design.  Failure to satisfy either test would result in a court victory for the alleged infringer.

            Egyptian Goddess purported to change the legal standard by dropping the point of novelty test.  In actuality, however, the court did not really remove point of novelty, but instead folded it into the ordinary observer test, thereby lessening its outcome-determinative effect.  Under the new wording of the ordinary observer test, a court must examine whether an ordinary observer, paying as much attention as a customer familiar with the prior art (the prior, similar patented designs), would reach the conclusion that the patented design and the accused infringing design are substantially the same.  By requiring that the hypothetical ordinary observer be knowledgeable about prior patents of the same ilk, the revised ordinary observer test leaves the door open for the same sort of comparison to prior art that was mandated by the old point of novelty test.  However, as a recent case from the U.S. District Court for the South District of New York makes clear, the new inquiry does not require comparison to prior art.  See Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co., Ltd. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 665 F Supp. 2d 357, 361-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).  The Federal Circuit contemplated that such a comparison would not be necessary in cases where the patented design and accused infringing design are “plainly dissimilar.”  Where the two are similar, reference to prior art will be necessary, and a court will likely engage in a similar evaluation to that performed under the old point of novelty test.  Of course, the court also recognized that even in a scenario where no reference to prior art is necessary, the eye of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior patents will naturally be drawn to the aspects of a design distinguishing it from prior patents.

            Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit’s revision of the patent infringement standard is good news for patent holders.  As the court clarified in Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the new test requires that courts look for “deception that arises [as] a result of the similarities in the overall design, not of similarities in ornamental features in isolation.”  In other words, courts should take a broader view and compare the overall design of the patented design and the allegedly infringing design rather than placing too great an emphasis on minutiae.  This means accused infringers will have less of an opportunity to prevail in court by focusing the judge’s attention on small details distinguishing the patented design and the allegedly infringing design—a strategy that often proved successful with the point of novelty test.

Esther Queen

About Esther Queen

Esther Queen primarily focuses her intellectual property practice on patent law. She prepares patent applications for prosecution before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, conducts patent validity and infringement studies, and assists clients in patent matters. She has patent experience in the areas of chemistry, pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, business methods, and mechanical devices.


No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the MVA IP Law Blog!

Moore & Van Allen’s IP Law Blog covers hot topics in U.S. and international intellectual property law and provides insight into critical litigation, legislative, regulatory and policy developments. In today’s highly competitive and rapidly developing business climate, technological advancements and the protection of intellectual property rights are paramount concerns common to companies, universities, and individuals operating in nearly every industry.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Matt Witsil:  View Matt Witsil's Bio View Matt Witsil's LinkedIn profile
  • Emmett Weindruch: View Emmett Weindruch's Bio View Emmett Weindruch's LinkedIn profile
  • Todd Taylor:  View Todd Taylor's Bio View Todd Taylor's LinkedIn profile
  • John Slaughter:  View John Slaughter's Bio View John Slaughter's LinkedIn profile
  • Nick Russell:  View Nick Russell's Bio
  • Ellen Rubel:  View Ellen Rubel's Bio View Ellen Rubel's LinkedIn profile
  • Esther Queen:  View Esther Queen's Bio View Esther Queen's LinkedIn profile
  • Steve Phillips:  View Steve Phillip's Bio View Steve Phillip's LinkedIn profile
  • Chuck Moore:  View Chuck Moore's Bio View Chuck Moore's LinkedIn profile
  • Mark Wilson:  View Mark Wilson's Bio View Mark Wilson's LinkedIn profile
  • Chris Knors:  View Chris Knors' Bio View Chris Knors' LinkedIn profile
  • Jeff Gray:  View Jeff Gray's Bio View Jeff Gray's LinkedIn profile
  • Andy Gerschutz:  View Andy Gerschutz's Bio View Andy Gerschutz's LinkedIn profile
  • Jim Edwards:  View Jim Edwards' Bio View Jim Edwards' LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Follow MVA


    Blog Topics


    Our IP Practice

    Moore & Van Allen is located in the Research Triangle and Charlotte, North Carolina – two emerging hubs in the areas of biotech and energy. Moore & Van Allen’s intellectual property lawyers are highly-skilled and innovative in their approach to assisting clients in using patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and technology to achieve their business objectives.

    Our “business focused” team combines legal know-how with the technical proficiency and industry experience necessary to navigate our clients through matters in areas as diverse as nuclear power, navigation systems, microprocessor design, pollution control, pharmaceuticals, semi-conductor manufacturing, food processing, telecommunications, internet applications, computer software, business methods and consumer products.

    We offer a full range of patent, trademark, and copyright services, and our team is equipped with IP litigators with substantial state, federal, and international experience. To benefit and best serve our clients, we leverage our ongoing working relationships with highly qualified intellectual property practitioners and agents in virtually every country in the world. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA IP Team.


    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.

    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)