sofpool v. kmart - order dismissing case

8/13/2019 Sofpool v. KMart - Order Dismissing Case

1/18


2/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

i nf r i nged t he pat ent , and t hat i n any event , t he pat ent i t sel f i s

i nval i d because i t was obvi ous i n l i ght of t he pr i or ar t . See 35

U. S. C. 103 ( non- obvi ous subj ect mat t er ) . 1

For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he cour t f i nds t hat t he accused

pool does not i nf r i nge t he 817 cl ai med pat ent . Accor di ngl y

summary j udgment wi l l be gr ant ed t o def endant s.

1. STANDARDS

a. Infringement.

A desi gn pat ent i s i nf r i nged i f t he pat ent ed desi gn, or any

col or abl e i mi t at i on t her eof , i s appl i ed t o any ar t i cl e of

manuf act ur e f or t he pur pose of sal e. 35 U. S. C. 289. Thus, a

desi gn pat ent i s i nf r i nged by t he unaut hor i zed manuf act ur e, use,

or sal e of t he ar t i cl e embodyi ng t he patent ed desi gn or any

col or abl e i mi t at i on t her eof . Ar mi nak and Associ at es, I nc. v.

Sai nt - Gobai n Cal mar , I nc. , 501 F. 3d 1314, 1319 ( Fed. Ci r . 2007) ,cer t . deni ed, 553 U. S. 1102 ( 2008) , quot i ng Goodyear Ti r e & Rubber

Co. v. Hercul es Ti r e & Rubber Co. , 162 F. 3d 1113, 1116- 17 ( Fed.

Ci r . 1998) . 2

1A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained ...

if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior artare such that the claimed invention as a whole would have beenobvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to whichthe claimed invention pertains. 35 U.S.C. 103. Designpatents, like utility patents, must meet the nonobviousnessrequirement of 35 U.S.C. 103. Titan Tire Corp. v. Case NewHolland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

2 The st at ute s use of t he t er m col or abl e i mi t at i on

r ecogni zes t hat mi nor changes i n a desi gn ar e of t en r eadi l y madewi t hout changi ng i t s over al l appear ance. Goodyear , 162 F. 3d at1117.

2

Case 2:10-cv-03333-LKK-JFM Document 93 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 13


3/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Of cour se, t he cl ai med desi gn does not cover t he uni ver se of

desi gns t hat r emot el y r esembl e i t . Rat her , as an i ni t i al mat t er ,

a desi gn pat ent ee l i mi t s t he scope of hi s pat ent by i ncl udi ng

or nament al f eat ur es t hat gi ve t he over al l desi gn a di st i nct i ve

or nament al appear ance. See El mer v. I CC Fabr i cat i ng, I nc. , 67 F. 3d

1571, 1577 ( Fed. Ci r . 1995) ( pat ent ee i ncl uded i n i t s dr awi ngs

cer t ai n f eat ur es t hat gave t he desi gn a di st i nct or nament al

appear ance, and t hus ef f ect i vel y l i mi t ed t he scope of i t s pat ent

cl ai mby i ncl udi ng t hose f eat ur es i n i t ) . Thus, t he i ni t i al st ep

i n any compar i son of desi gns i s a det er mi nat i on of whet her t he

accused desi gn i s even wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i on on scope t hat t he

patent ee has i mposed, t hr ough hi s pat ent dr awi ngs.

I f t he pat ent ee s l i mi t at i ons on hi s pat ent do not pl ai nl y

excl ude t he accused desi gn, however , t he i nf r i ngement i nqui r y t hen

r equi r es t he f act - f i nder t o compar e t he whol e of t he cl ai med desi gnt o t he desi gn of t he accused devi ce. OddzOn Product s, I nc. V.

J ust Toys, I nc. , 122 F. 3d 1396, 1404 ( Fed. Ci r . 1997) . The

compar i son r equi r es t he f act - f i nder t o det er mi ne whet her t he

pat ent ed desi gn as a whol e i s subst ant i al l y si mi l ar i n appear ance

t o t he accused desi gn. I d. , at 1405 ( emphasi s added) .

I n maki ng t hi s compar i son, t he f act - f i nder put s i t sel f i nt o

t he pl ace of an ordi nar y observer . Egypt i an Goddess, I nc. V.

Swi sa, I nc. , 543 F. 3d 665, 687 ( Fed. Ci r . 2008) ( en banc) , cer t .

deni ed, 556 U. S. ___, 129 S. Ct . 1917 ( 2009) . The ordi nar y

observer i s not an exper t ; he i s an observer of or di nar y

acut eness, br i ngi ng t o t he exami nat i on of t he ar t i cl e upon whi ch

3



4/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

t he desi gn has been pl aced t hat degr ee of obser vat i on whi ch men of

or di nar y i nt el l i gence gi ve. Gor hamMf g. Co. V. Whi t e, 81 U. S. 511,

528 ( 1871) ; Ar mi nak, 501 F. 3d at 1324 ( t he or di nar y observer i s

t he pur chaser of t he i t emdi spl ayi ng t he cl ai med desi gn) . However ,

he must not be t oo or di nar y; r at her he must be f ami l i ar wi t h t he

pr i or ar t desi gns. Ri char dson v. St anl ey Wor ks, I nc. , 597 F. 3d

1288, 1295 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) .

The desi gns ar e subst ant i al l y si mi l ar i f , vi ewi ng t he

over al l appear ance of t he desi gns, an ordi nar y observer

woul d be decei ved by the si mi l ar i t y between t he cl ai medand accused bowl s, i nduci ng hi m t o pur chase onesupposi ng i t t o be t he ot her .

Egypt i an Goddess, 543 F. 3d at 683, quot i ng Gorham, 81 U. S. at 528

; 3 OddzOn Pr oduct s, 122 F. 3d at 1405 ( Ther e can be no i nf r i ngement

based on t he si mi l ar i t y of speci f i c f eat ur es i f t he over al l

appear ance of t he desi gns are di ssi mi l ar ) ; Ri char dson, 597 F. 3d at1295 ( ordi nar y observer t est ) . 4

3 Egyptian Goddess is the key authority in determining

infringement of a design patent. It appears to be the lasten bancdecision of the Federal Circuit on the topic, and discusses thepertinent issues at length.

4Before the decision in Egyptian Goddess, the courts used the

point of novelty test, in addition to the ordinary observertest. Under the point of novelty test, no matter how similartwo items look, the accused device must appropriate the noveltyin the patented device which distinguishes it from the priorart. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 498 F.3d 1354, 1357(Fed. Cir. 2007), overruled, 543 F.3d 665 (2008) ( en banc). Inother words, the court first identified a point of novelty thatdistinguished the claimed design from the prior art. If thatpoint of novelty was not present in the accused design, thenthere could be no infringement.

The en banc court in Egyptian Goddess expressly did away with

4



5/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Si nce t he or di nar y obser ver i s f ami l i ar wi t h t he pr i or ar t ,

t he f act - f i nder wi l l be cal l ed upon t o consi der t he pr i or ar t i n

any compar i son bet ween desi gns:

I n some i nst ances, t he cl ai med desi gn and t he accuseddes i gn wi l l be suf f i ci ent l y di s t i nct t hat i t wi l l becl ear wi t hout mor e that t he pat ent ee has not met i t sbur den of pr ovi ng the t wo desi gns woul d appearsubst ant i al l y t he same t o t he or di nar y observer , asr equi r ed by Gorham. I n other i nst ances, when t he cl ai medand accused desi gns are not pl ai nl y di ssi mi l ar ,r esol ut i on of t he quest i on whet her t he or di nar y observerwoul d consi der t he t wo desi gns t o be subst ant i al l y t hesame wi l l benef i t f r om a compar i son of t he cl ai med andaccused desi gns wi t h t he pr i or ar t , as i n many of t hecases di scussed above and i n t he case at bar . Wheret her e ar e many exampl es of si mi l ar pr i or ar t desi gns . . .di f f erences bet ween the cl ai med and accused desi gns t hatmi ght not be not i ceabl e i n t he abst r act can becomesi gni f i cant t o t he hypot het i cal or di nar y obser ver who i sconver sant wi t h t he pr i or ar t .

Egypt i an Goddess, 543 F. 3d at 678.

B. Invalidity Obviousness.

A pat ent i s pr esumed t o be val i d. 35 U. S. C. 282( a) ; Aer oPr oduct s I nt er n. , I nc. v. I nt ex Recr eat i on Cor p. , 466 F. 3d 1000,

1015 ( Fed. Ci r . 2006) . Def endant s, who asser t t hat t he 817 pat ent

i s i nval i d f or obvi ousness, bear t he bur den of pr ovi ng i t s

i nval i di t y. I d. ; Cr eat i ve Compounds, LLC v. St ar mar k Labor at or i es,

651 F. 3d 1303, 1310 ( Fed. Ci r . 2011) . The st andar d of pr oof

def endant s must meet i s cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence. Mi cr osof t

the point of novelty test. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678(we hold that the point of novelty test should no longer be usedin the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement); Hallv. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 705 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(infringement of a design patent is based on the design as awhole, not on any points of novelty).

5



6/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Cor p. v. i 4i Ltd. Par t ner shi p, 564 U. S. ___, 131 S. Ct . 2238, 2242

( 2011) .

The Feder al Ci r cui t r ecent l y addressed how a par t y woul d go

about chal l engi ng a desi gn patent on obvi ousness gr ounds:

I n addr essi ng a cl ai mof obvi ousness i n a desi gn pat ent ,t he ul t i mat e i nqui r y . . . i s whet her t he cl ai med desi gnwoul d have been obvi ous t o a desi gner of or di nar y ski l lwho desi gns ar t i cl es of t he t ype i nvol ved. Ti t an Ti r e,566 F. 3d at 1375, quot i ng Dur l i ng v. Spect r um Fur ni t ur eCo. , 101 F. 3d 100, 103 ( Fed. Ci r . 1996) . To det er mi newhether one of ordi nary ski l l woul d have combi nedt eachi ngs of t he pr i or ar t t o cr eat e t he same over al lvi sual appear ance as t he cl ai med desi gn, i d. at 1381,t he f i nder of f act must empl oy a t wo- st ep pr ocess.Fi r st , one must f i nd a si ngl e r ef er ence, a somet hi ng i nexi st ence, t he desi gn char act er i st i cs of whi ch ar ebasi cal l y t he same as the cl ai med desi gn. Dur l i ng, 101F. 3d at 103, quot i ng I n r e Rosen, 673 F. 2d 388, 391 ( CCPA1982) . Second, ot her r ef erences may be used t o modi f y[ t he pr i mar y ref er ence] t o cr eat e a desi gn t hat has t hesame over al l vi sual appear ance as t he cl ai med desi gn. I d. However , t he secondary r ef erences may onl y be usedt o modi f y t he pr i mar y ref er ence i f t hey ar e so r el at edt o the pr i mar y ref er ence t hat t he appear ance of cer t ai n

or nament al f eat ur es i n one woul d suggest t he appl i cat i onof t hose f eat ur es t o t he ot her . I d. , quot i ng I n r eBor den, 90 F. 3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Ci r . 1996) .

Appl e, I nc. v. Samsung El ect r oni cs Co. , Lt d. , 678 F. 3d 1314,

1329- 30 ( Fed. Ci r . 2012) ; see al so Cr ocs, I nc. v. I TC, 598 F. 3d

1294, 1308 ( Fed. Ci r . 2010) ( Obvi ousness i s a quest i on of l aw

based on under l yi ng f act ual i nqui r i es i ncl udi ng: ( 1) t he scope and

cont ent of t he pr i or ar t ; ( 2) t he l evel of or di nar y ski l l i n t he

ar t ; ( 3) t he di f f er ences bet ween t he pr i or ar t and t he cl ai med

i nvent i on; and ( 4) t he extent of any obj ect i ve i ndi ci a of

non- obvi ousness) .

C. Summary Judgment.

Summary j udgment i s appr opr i ate i f t he movant shows t hat

6



7/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

t here i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mater i al f act and t he movant

i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Fed. R. Ci v. P.

56( a) ; Ri cci v. DeSt ef ano, 557 U. S. 557, 586 ( 2009) ( i t i s t he

movant s bur den t o demonst r ate t hat t here i s no genui ne i ssue as

t o any mat er i al f act and t hat t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a

mat t er of l aw ) ; Wal l s v. Cent r al Cont r a Cost a Tr ansi t Aut hor i t y,

653 F. 3d 963, 966 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) ( per cur i am) ( same) .

Consequent l y, [ s] ummary j udgment must be deni ed i f t he cour t

det er mi nes t hat a genui ne di sput e as t o [ a] mat er i al f act

pr ecl udes i mmedi at e ent r y of j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Or t i z

v. J or dan, 562 U. S. ___, 131 S. Ct . 884, 891 ( 2011) , quot i ng Fed.

R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ; Comi t e de J or nal er os de Redondo Beach v. Ci t y of

Redondo Beach, 657 F. 3d 936 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) ( en banc) ( same) , cer t .

deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 1566 ( 2012) .

Under summary j udgment pr act i ce, t he movi ng par t y bears t hei ni t i al r esponsi bi l i t y of i nf or mi ng t he di str i ct cour t of t he basi s

f or i t s mot i on, and ci t i ng t o par t i cul ar par t s of t he mat er i al s i n

t he r ecor d, Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ( 1) ( A) , t hat show t hat a f act

cannot be . . . di sput ed. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ( 1) ; Nur si ng Home

Pensi on Fund, Local 144 v. Or acl e Cor p. ( I n r e Or acl e Cor p.

Secur i t i es Li t i gat i on) , 627 F. 3d 376, 387 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( The

movi ng par t y i ni t i al l y bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t he absence of

a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act ) , ci t i ng Cel ot ex v. Cat r et t , 477

U. S. 317, 323 ( 1986) .

I f t he movi ng par t y meet s i t s i ni t i al r esponsi bi l i t y, t he

bur den t hen shi f t s t o t he nonmovi ng par t y t o est abl i sh t he

7



8/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

exi st ence of a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . Mat sushi t a El ec.

I ndus. Co. v. Zeni t h Radi o Cor p. , 475 U. S. 574, 585- 86 ( 1986) ;

Or acl e Corp. , 627 F. 3d at 387 ( where the movi ng part y meet s i t s

bur den, t he bur den t hen shi f t s t o t he nonmovi ng par t y t o

desi gnat e speci f i c f act s demonst r at i ng t he exi st ence of genui ne

i ssues f or t r i al ) . I n doi ng so, t he nonmovi ng par t y may not r el y

upon t he deni al s of i t s pl eadi ngs, but must t ender evi dence of

speci f i c f acts i n t he f or m of af f i davi t s and/ or ot her admi ssi bl e

mat er i al s i n suppor t of i t s cont ent i on t hat t he di sput e exi st s.

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( c)( 1) ( A) .

I n eval uat i ng t he evi dence t o det er mi ne whet her t her e i s a

genui ne i ssue of f act , t he cour t dr aws al l r easonabl e i nf er ences

suppor t ed by t he evi dence i n f avor of t he nonmovi ng par t y.

Wal l s, 653 F. 3d at 966. Because t he cour t onl y consi der s

i nf er ences suppor t ed by t he evi dence, i t i s t he nonmovi ngpar t y s obl i gat i on t o pr oduce a f act ual pr edi cat e as a basi s f or

such i nf er ences. See Ri char ds v. Ni el sen Frei ght Li nes, 810 F. 2d

898, 902 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) . The opposi ng part y must do more t han

si mpl y show t hat t here i s some metaphysi cal doubt as t o t he

mat er i al f act s . . . . Wher e t he r ecor d t aken as a whol e coul d not

l ead a r at i onal t r i er of f act t o f i nd f or t he nonmovi ng par t y,

t her e i s no genui ne i ssue f or t r i al . Mat sushi t a, 475 U. S. at

586- 87 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

2. ANALYSIS

a. Infringement.

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai med desi gn i s U. S. Desi gn Pat ent No. D480, 817

8



9/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

( t he 817 pat ent ) , f or an oval - shaped, above- gr ound swi mmi ng

pool . The cl ai mr eads as f ol l ows, i n i t s ent i r et y: The desi gn f or

an above- ground swi mmi ng pool , as shown and descr i bed. Dkt . No

24, Exh. A. 5 The per t i nent descr i pt i on consi st s of dr awi ngs. The

cour t has const r ued t he pat ent as f ol l ows:

The cl ai med desi gn i s an above- ground, oval - shaped poolwi t h si dest r ut s, and addi t i onal el ement s or f eat ur es, asshown i n t he 817 patent dr awi ngs. Whatever f unct i onalr ol e may be pl ayed by any el ement or f eat ur e of t he pooldepi ct ed i n t he dr awi ngs i s not a par t of t he cl ai m, andshoul d t her ef or e be di sr egar ded; but t he desi gn of t hosesame el ement s or f eat ur es i s a par t of t he cl ai m. Theel ement s or f eat ur es r ef er r ed t o i ncl ude, but ar e notl i mi t ed t o t he f ol l owi ng as depi ct ed i n t he dr awi ngs: t het ubul ar t op; si dest r ut s; si dest r aps; angl ed and bul gi ngsi de- wal l s; r ounded, angl ed and bul gi ng end wal l s; andsegment ed panel wal l s of var yi ng wi dt hs, connected byseams, and cr eat i ng a pat t ern as seen f r omabove.

ECF No. 73 ( cl ai mconst r uct i on) . The pat ent dr awi ngs ar e at t ached

t o t hi s Or der as Exhi bi t A.

As di scussed above, t he cour t s i ni t i al st ep i s t o det er mi newhet her t he accused desi gn i s even wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i on on scope

t hat t he patent ee has i mposed, t hr ough hi s pat ent dr awi ngs. At

f i r st gl ance, t he accused desi gn appear s t o be wi t hi n t he scope

l i mi t at i on of t he cl ai med desi gn. The cl ai med and accused desi gns,

ar e bot h f or an oval , above- gr ound pool . Pl ai nt i f f s St at ement of

5 Plaintiff did not expressly limit the claim to theornamental design. However, by law, the design patent onlycovers the ornamental aspects of the design, so its omission ofthat language appears to make no difference. See Richardson, 597F.3d at 1293 (The district court here properly factored out thefunctional aspects of Richardson's design as part of its claimconstruction. By definition, the patented design is for amulti-function tool that has several functional components, and wehave made clear that a design patent, unlike a utility patent,limits protection to the ornamental design of the article).

9



10/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Undi sput ed Fact s ( PSUF) 5; 6Def endant s St atement of Undi sput ed

Fact s ( DSUF) 19. 7 Bot h desi gns f eat ur e a t ubul ar t op.

Def endant s' St atement of Undi sput ed Fact s ( "DSUP") ( ECF No. 81- 1)

33- 34. Bot h desi gns f eat ur e si de st r ut s al ong t hei r l ong si des,

st r et chi ng f r omj ust bel ow t he t ubul ar t op, t o t he gr ound. I d. ,

21- 22. Bot h desi gns f eat ur e si de st r aps t hat r un under neat h t he

pool and connect t he st r ut s wher e t he st r ut s meet t he gr ound. I d. ,

47- 48. Both desi gns have angl ed si de wal l s wi t h a cur ve or

bul ge at t he bot t om, j ust bef or e the st r uct ur e meet s t he gr ound.

I d. , 35- 36. Bot h desi gns cont ai n segment ed si de wal l s. 8 I d. ,

49- 50.

However , one or nament al aspect of a desi gn patent i s t he

pr opor t i ons of t he desi gn. See Lee v. Dayton- Hudson Cor p. , 838

F. 2d 1186, 1188 ( Fed. Ci r . 1988) ( t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y

vi ewed t he desi gn aspect s of t he accused devi ces: t he wooden bal l s,t hei r pol i shed f i ni sh and appear ance, t he pr opor t i ons, t he car vi ng

on t he handl e, and al l ot her or nament al char act er i st i cs) ( emphasi s

added) . The 817 pat ent cl ai ms a pool desi gn t hat i s appr oxi mat el y

seven ( 7) t i mes l onger t han i t i s tal l , i n i t s 2- st r ut desi gn. See

Compl ai nt , Exh. A. Accor di ngl y, t he pat ent cl ai ms a desi gn f or a

squat pool . I ndeed, t he over al l appear ance of t he cl ai med desi gn

6ECF No. 82-1.

7ECF No. 81-1.

8The segments of the claimed design form a specific pattern

when viewed from above. The photographs of the accused design donot make clear whether a similar pattern exists or not.

10



11/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

i s of a squat , wadi ng- t ype pool .

The accused pool , on t he ot her hand, has a t al l er and mor e

el egant appear ance. See Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or Summary J udgment

( PSJ ) ( ECF No. 77) at 35, Phot ogr aphs B & E. I t does not gi ve

t he appear ance of bei ng squat . I ndeed, t he accused desi gn i s l ess

t han f our ( 4) t i mes l onger ( t aki ng t he l engt h of t he t ubul ar t op)

t han i t i s t al l , appr oxi mat el y, i n i t s 2- st r ut desi gn. Whi l e bot h

desi gns may gi ve t he i mpr essi on of bei ng wadi ng pool s, t he cl ai med

desi gn gi ves t he appear ance of bei ng a squat wadi ng pool , even

possi bl y per mi t t i ng a per son or chi l d t o si t i n i t , wher eas t he

accused pool appear s t o be t oo t al l f or si t t i ng. 9

A desi gn pat ent cannot , of cour se, cl ai m ever y concei vabl e

shape and pr opor t i on t hat coul d ar i se f r om i t s basi c desi gn. But

t hat woul d appear t o be the poi nt of per mi t t i ng desi gn pat ent s i n

t he f i r st pl ace. The pat ent pr ot ect s t he shape and pr opor t i on t hepat ent ee chooses, but l eaves ot her shapes and pr opor t i ons t o the

i magi nat i on of ot her desi gner s.

The cour t must keep i n mi nd t hat t he ul t i mat e goal of t he

desi gn pat ent i s t o pr event t he unaut hor i zed manuf act ur e, use, or

sal e of t he ar t i cl e embodyi ng t he pat ent ed desi gn or any col or abl e

9 The comparison is somewhat awkward because the court iscomparing the black-and-white drawings of the claimed designagainst the color photographs of the accused design. However, thecourt is instructed to use the claimed drawings, not the commercialembodiment of the claimed design. See Sun Hill Industries, Inc.v. Easter Unlimited, Inc., 48 F.3d 1193, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(The test for infringement is not whether the accused product issubstantially similar to the patentee's commercial embodiment ofthe claimed design) (the point of novelty analysis of this casewas overruled by Egyptian Goddess).

11



12/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

i mi t at i on t hereof . See 35 U. S. C. 289 ( emphasi s added) . The

cour t bel i eves t hat no r easonabl e j ur or coul d f i nd t hat an or di nar y

observer woul d concl ude that t he t al l er , more el egant accused pool

embod[ i es] t he squat pool pl ai nt i f f pat ent ed, or any col or abl e

i mi t at i on t her eof . 10

B. Invalidity and Non-obviousness.

Bot h def endant s have moved f or summar y j udgment on thei r

count er cl ai ms t hat t hey di d not i nf r i nge t he pat ent , and t hat t he

pat ent i s i nval i d f or obvi ousness. The mot i ons f or summar y

j udgment based upon non- i nf r i ngement wi l l be grant ed f or t he

r easons st at ed above i n Sect i on I I I ( A) .

The mot i ons f or summar y j udgment based upon obvi ousness appear

t o be based upon t he pr emi se t hat i f t he desi gn of t he 817 Pat ent

i s i nt erpr eted br oadl y enough t o cover t he Summer Escapes pool [ t he

accused desi gn] , t hen i t woul d have been obvi ous t o one ski l l ed i nt he ar t t o combi ne ear l i er r ef er ences t o ar r i ve at a si ngl e pi ece

of ar t t hat i s subst ant i al l y t he same as what i s cl ai med i n t he

817 Pat ent . Def endant s Mot i on f or Summary J udgment ( DSJ )

at 34. 11 Si nce t he cour t has det er mi ned t hat t he desi gn of t he 817

does not cover t he accused desi gn, t hi s mot i on woul d appear t o be

10The court is aware that in a case alleging infringement ofa design patent, it is often helpful to refer to any prior artwith which the ordinary observer would reasonably be familiar.Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co., 700 F.3d 524, 527 (Fed.Cir. 2012). Here, because the accused design is not within thescope of the claimed design, there is no need to engage in adiscussion or analysis of the prior art.

11ECF No. 78-1. The page numbering refers to the internal

document page number, not the ECF page number.

12



13/18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

moot .12

IV. CONCLUSION

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he cour t or der s as f ol l ows:

1. Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or summar y j udgment ( ECF No. 77) , i s

DENIED;

2. Def endant s mot i on f or summar y j udgment ( ECF No. 78) , i s

GRANTED on t he gr ounds of non- i nf r i ngement , and t hei r mot i on f or

summary j udgment on t he grounds of obvi ousness i s DENIED as moot ;

3. The Cl er k i s di r ected t o ent er j udgment f or def endant and

t o cl ose t hi s case.

I T I S SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2013.

12 As plaintiff points out, a jury in another case

specifically found that the 817 patent was not invalid forobviousness. See Sofpool v. Intex , Civ. No. 2:7-cv-97, ECFNo. 148, Question No. 4 (E.D. Tex. April 17, 2008). However, thatverdict was vacated by the Federal Circuit, although on grounds notapparently related to the non-obviousness finding. Sofpool, LLCv. Intex Recreation Corp., 328 Fed. Appx. 654, 654-655 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (Because the jury in the present case was instructedbased upon the point of novelty test eliminated by EgyptianGoddess, the judgment of the district court is vacated and the caseis remanded for reconsideration and further proceedings asappropriate).

13



14/18

Case 2:10-cv-03333-LKK-JFM Document 93-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 5


15/18



16/18



17/18



18/18


sofpool v. kmart - order dismissing case

Documents