Federal Circuit Reverses Design Patent Claim Construction

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

In the wake of the Apple v. Samsung cases, the importance of design patents has become more visible. Whether a product infringes a design patent can sometimes be difficult to determine because design patents only protect the ornamental aspects of a design, and not the functional aspects. The Federal Circuit, in Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company, Inc. (No. 2015-1553) recently considered the interplay between ornamentation and functionality in a design patent.

Background

Coleman sells a variety of outdoor sporting equipment, including personal flotation devices. One of its products,  a flotation device with two arm bands and a torso piece, is protected by US Design Patent No. D623,714.

Flotation DeviceSport Dimension also sells personal flotation devices, including its line of Body Glove products that also have two armbands and a torso section.

Body GloveColeman brought suit against Sport Dimension, alleging infringement of the ‘714 patent.

The trial court adopted Sport Dimension’s claim construction, which expressly excluded the arm bands and side torso tapering as elements of the claim, because functional elements not protected by the patent. Coleman then moved for entry of a judgment of non-infringement in favor of Sport Dimension so that it could appeal the claim construction ruling.

The Federal Circuit reversed the claim construction, vacated the judgment of non-infringement, and remanded.

Analysis

The Federal Circuit began by noting that it is often difficult to use words to describe a design, which is why illustrations are an important part of design patents. Despite the limitations of words, the Court noted that it is often constructive for courts to construe design patents in order to guide the fact finder in determining infringement.

The Court then noted the law of infringement of design patents–a design patent cannot protect purely functional designs, but it can protect designs that are not primarily functional even if certain elements have functional purposes. Thus, design patents can be used with products that have elements that are both functional and non-functional, but the design patent will only protect the non-functional elements that are shown in the patent. Of particular interest to design patent litigators, the Court reviewed the key cases in the design patent arena.

In analyzing the patent in dispute and the trial court’s claim construction, the Federal Circuit found that the trial court went too far in excluding entirely the arm bands and tapered side torso from the scope of the patent. The Court agreed that these elements had functional aspects, but concluded it was improper to entirely exclude these elements. The test for infringement of a design patent is not an element-by-element comparison. Instead, infringement is to be assessed based on the overall design, excluding the functional aspects of certain elements (as opposed to excluding the elements entirely).

Based on this faulty claim construction, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.

Conclusion

This case highlights the difficulty that design patents present for courts and fact finders. Sometimes, the functional/ornamental aspects are difficult to distinguish and apply. Nonetheless, design patents are still an important piece of intellectual property for many companies and should not be discounted lightly.

Copyright Infringement Suit Over Hit Song Fails Due to Lack of Valid Copyright Registration

by: Kelly A. Williams, a shareholder at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

Copyright SignRapper Rick Ross and his producers sued LMFAO members Skyler and Stefan Gordy in December 2013, claiming that “Party Rock Anthem,” which topped the Billboard charts for six weeks and sold more than 7.5 million copies in the U.S., infringed Rick Ross’s 2006 hit “Hustlin’.”  The court held that Rick Ross and his producers didn’t have the copyright registration necessary to sue for infringement.  The court determined that Ross and his producers never presented evidence showing they were the owners of “Hustlin’,” and the three different registrations for the song at the U.S. Copyright Office were all inaccurate.

Interestingly, the members of LMFAO didn’t dispute that they had Ross’ “every day I’m hustlin” lyrics in mind when they drafted their “every day I’m shuffling” lyric.  However, they raised several defenses including lack of standing and fair use.  They won on lack of standing.  If they had not, the court had previously ruled that it would leave the fair use issue for trial.  That issue was whether LMFAO transformed Ross’ lyric into something new.

Also of note was the Register of Copyrights’ finding that the misrepresentations on three registrations for Ross’s Hustlin’ song were strong enough that the Register would cancel all three.  The court also commented on this, finding that the misrepresentations were dramatic and unexplained especially because two of them were filed by major, global music corporations.  The court’s ruling did not cancel the registrations.  However, it did bar Ross from bringing the infringement action because it turned on whether there was a valid registration, and Ross and his producers didn’t have one.

The case is found at Roberts v. Gordy, case no. 1:13-cv-2470 in the U.S. Dist. Court for the S.D. Florida.

VENUE: Will Texas Lose its Dominance as a Patent Venue? Fed. Circuit Tackles Venue in the “Heartland” Case

 

FEDERAL CIRCUIT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT IN “HEARTLAND” CASE ON MAJOR VENUE ISSUE

Posted by Henry M. Sneath, Esq. – Chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. (PSMN® and PSMNLaw®) in Pittsburgh, Pa. He may be contacted at hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013. Website www.psmn.com or www.psmn.law

Federal CircuitYesterday the Federal Circuit heard oral argument on the mandamus petition filed by TC Heartland in an underlying case lodged in the District Court of Delaware ( The underlying case is Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. TC Heartland LLC, case number 1:14-cv-00028, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware). The outcome could either keep the status quo where Texas is the venue of choice for an inordinately large number of patent infringement filings, or force courts to adopt a different standard for evaluating proper venue. Texas, Delaware and the Northern District of California receive the majority of patent case filings, but Texas gets over 40% of all filings alone. Heartland, as sued by Kraft Foods, is headquartered in Indiana and believes that the case should be lodged in their home jurisdiction and not where they have little or no business contact in Delaware – beyond sales of product. On a challenge to venue, the District Court used the currently applied standard finding “venue is appropriate for a defendant in a patent infringement case where personal jurisdiction exists.” Heartland argues that the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 effectively repealed the Federal Circuit’s 1990 ruling in VE Holding v. Johnson Gas Appliance that patent suits can be brought anywhere a defendant makes sales. In other words, that personal jurisdiction and venue are essentially the same. Heartland, in its mandamus petition ( https://www.eff.org/files/2015/10/28/in_re_tc_heartland.pdf ) has asked the Federal Circuit to reevaluate the VE Holding case along with certain Congressional venue legislation and the overall venue issue.

Here are a couple of resources to assist you in following this case. The great blog at Patently-O has written on Heartland: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/defendant-jurisdictional-infringement.html

See also a fascinating study of what would happen to patent case filings if the Federal Circuit changed the venue standard: From Patently-O: Guest Post: What Would Happen to Patent Cases if They Couldn’t all be Filed in Texas? March 11, 2016 PatentJasonRantanen by Colleen Chien, Santa Clara University Law School and Michael Risch, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Sneath Headshot  Henry M. Sneath, Esq.

 

                        

 

Federal Circuit Recognizes Patent Agent Privilege

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Federal CircuitThe Federal Circuit recently decided an interesting case about whether there should be a patent agent-client privilege. In In re: Queen’s University at Kingston (Case No. 14-145), the Federal Circuit concluded that there should be such a privilege in a 2-1 decision written by Judge O’Malley (Judge Lourie joined the decision, and Judge Reyna dissented).

Background

Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas. During discovery, Samsung sought to discovery certain communications between Queen’s University employees and its registered patent agents. The district court granted a motion to compel, finding, in part, that there was no patent agent privilege. Queen’s University filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit challenging the order.

Analysis

The Federal Circuit first determined that its law, and not the law of the regional circuits or state law should apply to determine whether a patent agent privilege might exist because the issue relates to patent-specific subject matter. It also noted that the issue was one of first impression at the Federal Circuit, but was one where there is conflicting authority at the district court level.

The Court then decided that it was appropriate to consider the writ given that once the documents were produced, there would be no easy way to undo the damage if a privilege existed. The Court also noted that the district court split on the subject favored it providing some clarity on the issue. The Federal Circuit then turned to the issue of whether it should recognize a patent agent privilege.

The Court found that Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence authorizes federal courts, in appropriate circumstances, to recognize new privileges. It further noted that it did so with some caution, as privileges restrict the flow of information and should not be created lightly.

The Court then looked to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sperry v. State of Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), in which the Supreme Court recognized that patent agents perform acts that constitute the practice of law and that the regulation of patent agents is solely governed by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

In looking at the Supreme Court’s analysis in that case, the Court traced the history of patent agents and the nature of their work before concluding that a limited patent agent privilege is appropriate.

The Court next turned to what the scope of that privilege should be. Not all communications with a patent agent can be privileged.

Communications between non-attorney patent agents and their clients that are in furtherance of the performance of these tasks, or “which are reasonably necessary and incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications or other proceeding before the Office involving a patent application or patent in which the practitioner is authorized to participate” receive the benefit of the patent-agent privilege.
Communications that are not reasonably necessary and incident to the prosecution of patents before the Patent Office fall outside the scope of the patent-agent privilege. For instance, communications with a patent agent who is offering an opinion on the validity of another party’s patent in contemplation of litigation or for the sale or purchase of a patent, or on infringement, are not “reasonably necessary and incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications or other proceeding before the Office.”

Based on the recognition of this new privilege, the Court grant the petition for a writ of mandamus, vacated the district court’s order on the motion to compel, and remanded for further consideration.

Huge CMU v. Marvell Patent Infringement Case Settled in Pittsburgh

 

Posted by Henry M. Sneath, Esq. – Chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. (PSMN® and PSMNLaw®) in Pittsburgh, Pa. He may be contacted at hsneath@psmn.com or 412-288-4013. Website www.psmn.com or www.psmn.law

marvell_chipFrom “ars technica“* publication: One of the largest patent verdict cases ever was obtained by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh Federal District Court in 2012 in the courtroom of the Hon. Nora Barry Fischer as presiding judge. CMU won a $1.17 billion jury verdict in 2012 and the court enhanced the verdict to $1.54 Billion.  The Federal Circuit cut the win significantly, by reducing the damages and eliminating the enhanced damages award, but kept the main verdict intact. The case was just settled here in Pittsburgh for $750 Million. It will allegedly be the second largest payment ever in a technology patent case. A thorough article on the matter with good links to the case history appears at web publication ars technica*(http://tinyurl.com/zwb26wg ).

*ars technica is a copyrighted publication and the references and links herein are from the website of ars technica (© Ars Technica 1998-2016)

Henry M. Sneath

Sneath Headshot

Monkeys Cannot Own Copyrights

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

l1aYeA little over a year ago, we discussed an interesting case where the owner of a camera that took a picture of a monkey could not register a copyright in the picture because the monkey was the one took a picture of itself. Well, that case reemerged last year when attorneys for PETA who “represent” the monkey filed a lawsuit in California arguing that the photographer violated the monkey’s copyright when he published pictures that the monkey took. (Naruto v. Slater, 3:15-cv-04324-WHO, C.D. Cal.) Last week, the Court granted the photographer’s motion to dismiss, holding that a monkey is not entitled to register a copyright with the Copyright Office or bring suit for copyright infrinement.

The monkey brought suit under Sections 106 and 501 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501), alleging that the publication of the photographs it took violated its copyrights in these photographs. The Court initially noted that there is no per se bar to an animal being a proper plaintiff in some limited circumstances, so it chose not to focus on that aspect of the case. Instead, the Court looked to the language of the Copyright Act, its legislative history, court opinions interpreting the Act, and the regulations of the Copyright Office. Taking all of these together, the Court found no indicating that Congress ever intended for animals to be able to hold copyrights or bring suit under the Act. In particular, the Court noted the Copyright Office has considered this very situation–whether a monkey can hold a copyright–and concluded that it cannot. See Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 313.2 (December 2014).

So, for now at least, photographs taken by monkeys (and other animals) cannot be copyrighted by the animal.

“Happy Birthday to You” Song Copyright Stricken

by: Kelly A. Williams, a shareholder at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

Good Morning to You Productions Corp. v. Warner Chappell Music, Case. No. 2:13-cv-04460, C.D. Cal. is about whether Warner/Chappell was properly asserting that it owned a copyright in the song “Happy Birthday to You.”

Birthday CakeThe case is a class action suit led by film production companies and a California musician who were working on a documentary about the song, “Happy Birthday to You.”  Warner/Chappell claimed to have a copyright on the song and demanded that Plaintiffs pay a $1,500 licensing fee to use the song.  The court goes through a large amount of historical evidence presented by both sides on cross motions for summary judgment.  After reviewing the evidence, the court found that Warner/Chappell did not own a valid copyright in the “Happy Birthday” lyrics and that the music for the song had entered the public domain years ago.  The origin of Warner/Chappell’s claim that it owned the copyright went back to a previous company which had acquired a song from two sisters that had the same music but different words, titled “Good Morning to All.”  The court could not find any reference to the “Happy Birthday” words in the agreement between the sisters and the purchasing company, Summy Co. (Defendants were successors-in-interest to Summy Co.).  Thus, the court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs are seeking to have Warner/Chappell return the millions of dollars they collected over the years.  Also, we are all now free to sing “Happy Birthday to You” without fear of having to pay $1,500 (unless the case gets reversed on any appeal).

Another Attempt at a Federal Trade Secrets Law

by: Kelly A. Williams, a shareholder at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

US Capitol BuildingA bill was introduced on Wednesday, July 29, 2015, in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of senators and representatives that would allow a private right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets under federal law.  Currently, federal law only provides criminal relief for the theft of trade secrets and civil relief is left to the laws of each state.  This is not the first time that Congress has tried to pass such a law.  An attempt approximately one year ago failed.  The current bill is title “Defend Trade Secrets Act,” and it would be enacted under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.  Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens of corporations, including IBM, Boeing, General Electric and Nike, support the bill.  Trade secrets and the protection of trade secrets are becoming increasingly important as the laws governing patent protection are changing and narrowing.  Let’s see if the government gets it done this time.

2d Circuit Punts on Copyright Registration Question Again

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Think!An interesting copyright question continues to percolate in the Circuit Courts over what “registration” means as a prerequisite for filing a copyright claim in federal court. The Second Circuit, in The A Star Group, Inc. v. Manitoba Hydro, (No. 14-2738) noted the Circuit split on the issue but declined again to weigh in.

Under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), a copyright holder must register its work before it can initiate a lawsuit against an infringer:

no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.

The question is what is sufficient to satisfy the “registration” requirement–is the filing of the application sufficient, or does the application need to be accepted and granted by the Copyright Office?

Currently, the Circuit Courts on split on the issue. The Fifth and Ninth Circuits require only that the copyright holder file the application. See, e.g., Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386-87 (5th Cir. 1984); Cosmetic Ideas Inc. v. IAC/InteractiveCorp,  606 F. 3d 612, (9th Cir. 2010). While the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits require that the Copyright Office grant the application. See, e.g., M.G.B. Homes, Inc. v. Ameron Homes, Inc., 903 F.2d 1486, 1488-89 (11th Cir. 1990) ;  La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195, 1202-05 (10th Cir. 2005). The Seventh Circuit appears to have taken conflicting views on this matter. Compare Chicago Bd. of Educ. v. Substance Inc., 354 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2003) with Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644, 655 (7th Cir. 2004).

The Second Circuit chose not to wade into this issue and was able to decide the case without having to choose a side. At some point, however, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely need to resolve this dispute as the Circuit split continues. As it stands now, a copyright holder can face very different results depending on where the case is filed, which is not a helpful situation when a national right, such as a copyright, is involved.

Peace, Love, and . . . Trademarks?

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

In Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enterprises, LLC (Case No. 2014-1853), the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (No. 91206450) that sustained an opposition brought by GS Enterprises against Juice Generation’s attempt to register the mark “PEACE LOVE AND JUICE.” The Federal Circuit remanded for further consideration, finding that the TTAB “did not adequately address the weakness of GS’s marks and did not properly consider the three-word combination of Juice Generation’s mark as a whole in comparing it to the two-word combination in GS’s marks.”

Background

Juice Generation operates a chain of juice bars in New York City. It attempted to register the mark “PEACE LOVE AND JUICE” with the USPTO in connection with juice bar services (disclaiming “juice”).

GS Enterprises has four registered trademarks in the restaurant services class that incorporate the words Peace and Love–“P & L PEACE & LOVE,” “ALL YOU NEED IS PEACE & LOVE,” “PEACE & LOVE,” and “P & L PEACE & LOVE NEW YORK.” Examples of two of its marks are shown below:

Peace Love Image 2 Peace Love Image 3

GS Enterprises filed an opposition to Juice Generation’s application, arguing that the “PEACE LOVE AND JUICE” mark created a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB considered the 13 DuPont factors in analyzing the likelihood of confusion. It first found that Juice Generation had been using its mark for years without evidence of actual confusion, but it discounted this factor because it did not think that there had been “meaningful opportunities” for actual confusion to occur given the parties’ use of their marks.

The Board next looked to the dominant feature of Juice Generation’s mark (PEACE LOVE) and found it was virtually identical to GS Enterprise’s “PEACE & LOVE” mark.

The Board also looked to at least 26 examples of 3rd parties using similar combinations of Peace and Love in their marks–e.g., “PEACE LOVE AND PIZZA,” “PEACE LOVE YOGURT,” and “PEACE, LOVE & BEER,” but did not find that there was sufficient evidence to show that consumers recognized that other entities were using similar terms in their marks.

On balancing this evidence, the TTAB concluded the there was a likelihood of confusion with consumers and sustained GS Enterprises’ opposition.

The Federal Circuit Vacates and REmands

The Federal Circuit was clearly troubled by the conclusions the TTAB reached. It first noted that likelihood of confusion is a legal conclusion that it reviews de novo, and that it is to be analyzed using the 13 DuPont factors.

The Federal Circuit was concerned by the TTAB’s failure to place much weight in the numerous examples of other marks that used the words “PEACE” and “LOVE” together with other terms. The Court found these examples to be “powerful” evidence that GS Enterprises’ marks were not strong on their face. With so many similar marks, there was substantial prima facie evidence that GS Enterprises marks were not strong. As a result, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the TTAB to conduct a more thorough analysis of the strength of GS Enterprises’ mark in light of these numerous similar marks.

The Federal Circuit finally noted that the TTAB improperly considered just a portion of Juice Generation’s mark–the PEACE LOVE part–without considering whether the mark as a whole might convey a meaning distinct from GS Enterprises’ marks. As a result, the Federal Circuit also remanded for the TTAB to provide a more thorough analysis of the mark as a whole.