In a case recently seen by the Federal Circuit Court, the plaintiff, Anderson, claimed that Kimberly-Clark had infringed on several patents for a disposable underwear, admittedly a somewhat comical patent. Kimberly-Clark rebutted this argument by claiming that it did not infringe on the designs, as a neutral observer would clearly be able to distinguish the design.
This is important because the precedent for design patent cases has defined infringement as a situation in which an ordinary observer that is familiar with the previous design would confuse the new design as being the same as the old one. The key word in this sentence is "same", since this puts the burden on Anderson to show that Kimberly-Clark's designs actually look the same as theirs.
The Federal Circuit court ultimately agreed with Kimberly-Clark's argument that there was no patent infringement, though they did not invalidate Anderson's patents, as in many other cases. This is a significant ruling because it has the potential to spark more boldness in the design industry in terms of creating similar but different designs. I believe this is actually a good thing since it will encourage more design competition, which will benefit the consumer by providing more choices for similar products. The only harm from design patent infringement would come if a consumer actually believed that two different designs were the same and confused the two, but this is clearly not the case.
Source: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/07/federal-circuit-dismissal.html
This is important because the precedent for design patent cases has defined infringement as a situation in which an ordinary observer that is familiar with the previous design would confuse the new design as being the same as the old one. The key word in this sentence is "same", since this puts the burden on Anderson to show that Kimberly-Clark's designs actually look the same as theirs.
The Federal Circuit court ultimately agreed with Kimberly-Clark's argument that there was no patent infringement, though they did not invalidate Anderson's patents, as in many other cases. This is a significant ruling because it has the potential to spark more boldness in the design industry in terms of creating similar but different designs. I believe this is actually a good thing since it will encourage more design competition, which will benefit the consumer by providing more choices for similar products. The only harm from design patent infringement would come if a consumer actually believed that two different designs were the same and confused the two, but this is clearly not the case.
Source: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/07/federal-circuit-dismissal.html
