sunrise - order granting sj

7/28/2019 Sunrise - Order Granting SJ

1/23

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

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

BRYAN C. McI NTI RE, ani ndi vi dual ,

NO. CI V. S- 11- 2495 LKK/ CKDPl ai nt i f f ,

v.

SUNRI SE SPECI ALTY COMPANY, O R D E Ra Cal i f or ni a cor por at i on,

Def endant ./

Pl ai nt i f f Br yan C. McI nt i r e al l eges t hat def endant Sunr i se

Speci al t y Co. i nf r i nged hi s t oi l et bowl desi gn pat ent . 1 Pl ai nt i f f

now moves f or summar y j udgment on the gr ound t hat no reasonabl e

j uror coul d f ai l t o f i nd t hat def endant s bowl i nf r i nges hi s

1 Design patents are granted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 171:Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for anarticle of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor. In contrast,utility patents are granted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 (Whoeverinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and usefulimprovement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor). See IntlSeaway Trading Corp. V. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1238 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (comparing requirements for design versus utilitypatents).

1

Case 2:11-cv-02495-LKK-CKD Document 69 Filed 05/07/13 Page 1 of 18


2/23

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

desi gn. Def endant cr oss- moves f or summary j udgment on t he ground

t hat no r easonabl e j ur or coul d f i nd t hat i t s bowl i nf r i nges

pl ai nt i f f s pat ent ed desi gn.

For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he cour t concl udes t hat under

t he appl i cabl e i nf r i ngement and summary j udgment st andards, no

r easonabl e j ur or coul d f i nd i nf r i ngement her e. Pl ai nt i f f l i mi t ed

t he scope of hi s pat ent t o t he dr awi ngs of t he pat ent , and

def endant s bowl does not embody t hose dr awi ngs. Accor di ngl y,

def endant s mot i on f or summary j udgment wi l l be gr ant ed, and

pl ai nt i f f s wi l l be deni ed.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts Leading to the Alleged Infringement.2

Pl ai nt i f f Br yan C. McI nt i r e i s t he owner and oper at or of Mac

t he Ant i que Pl umber , a whol esal e and r et ai l sel l er of ant i que

pl umbi ng f i xt ur es, i ncl udi ng t oi l et bowl s. [ Pr oposed] St at ement ofUncont r over t ed Fact s i n Suppor t of Pl ai nt i f f Br yan C. McI nt i r e s

Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment ( PSUF) ( ECF No. 50- 2) 1. Pl ai nt i f f

submi t t ed a t oi l et bowl desi gn t o t he U. S. Pat ent and Tr ademar k

Of f i ce, and on December 26, 2006, he was i ssued Desi gn Patent No.

D524, 254 ( t he D254 Pat ent or t he cl ai med desi gn) . PSUF 5;

See Compl ai nt ( ECF No. 1) , Exh. A ( Pat ent and Dr awi ngs) .

Ther eaf t er , pl ai nt i f f McI nt i r e sol d t oi l et bowl s embodyi ng t he

desi gn of t he D254 Pat ent t o def endant Sunr i se. PSUF 12 & 13.

2 Many of the facts noted here would only be relevant to aclaim of willfullness. Given that the court concludes that summaryjudgment on behalf of defendant is appropriate, they are only setout to provide a factual context for the suit.

2



3/23

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

Def endant Sunr i se t hen sol d t hose bowl s t o i t s cust omer s. PSUF

13. Pl ai nt i f f al so sol d t o def endant , however , bowl s that di d

not i ncl ude the beads ar ound t he r i m, but t hat ot her wi se wer e the

same as t hose embodyi ng t he D254 Pat ent . PSUF 13.

Rober t Wei nst ei n i s t he Pr esi dent of def endant Sunr i se.

Def endant Sunr i se Speci al t y Company s St atement OF Uncont r over t ed

Fact s ( DSUF) ( ECF No. 52) 1. I n 2009, Wei nst ei n showed

pl ai nt i f f McI nt i r e a t oi l et bowl t hat Wei nst ei n sai d had been

manuf act ur ed i n Chi na. Decl ar at i on of Pl ai nt i f f Br yan C. McI nt i r e

i n Suppor t of Mot i on f or Summary J udgment ( ECF No. 50- 3)

( "B. McI nt i r e Decl . ") 11. 3 Wei nst ei n advi sed McI nt i r e t hat he

had sent one of pl ai nt i f f McI nt i r e s bowl s t o a manuf act ur er i n

Chi na t o see i f i t coul d make a sampl e, and t hat t he bowl Wei nst ei n

showed t o McI nt i r e was t he r esul t . B. McI nt i r e Decl . 11.

McI nt i r e t ol d def endant Wei nst ei n t hat McI nt i r e s desi gn waspr ot ect ed by a pat ent , a f act t hat Wei nst ei n acknowl edged. B.

McI nt i r e Decl . 12.

Sever al mont hs af t er t hese event s, def endant st opped or der i ng

bowl s f r om pl ai nt i f f , wi t h i t s l ast or der bei ng dat ed J une 30,

3 Defendant denies everything in this paragraph. DefendantSunrise Specialty Company's Response to Plaintiff's ProposedStatement of Uncontroverted Facts Supporting his Motion for SummaryJudgment ("Def. Resp. to PSUF") (ECF No. 60) 15-19. However, theevidence defendant offers to put them in dispute excerpt ofInterrogatory Answer # 14, Fischer Declaration, 5, Exhibit C does not dispute any of these assertions. Therefore, theassertions are undisputed. They may be material because they gothe issue of damages. See Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L.Gore & Associates, Inc., 682 F.3d 1003, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Afinding of willful infringement allows an award of enhanced damagesunder 35 U.S.C. 284"), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 932 (2013).

3



4/23

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

2008. PSUF 20- 21. The bowl s f r om t hat l ast or der wer e shi pped

t o def endant on or about Febr uary 12, 2009. 4 PSUF 21. However ,

i n or around Oct ober 2010, a new Sunr i se catal ogue f eat ur ed t he

same pi ct ur es of t he bowl s t hat had been used when McI nt i r e was

suppl yi ng t he bowl s t o Sunr i se bet ween 2006 and 2009. PSUF 23. 5

B. The D254 Patent.

Thi s cour t has const r ued pl ai nt i f f s desi gn pat ent as f ol l ows:

The or namental desi gn f or a t oi l et bowl , as shown anddescr i bed by US Patent D534, 254 S, and i t s seven (7)i ncl uded dr awi ngs.

ECF No. 46 ( 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. The D254 Patent cont ai ns several

desi gn f eat ur es whi ch, i n t he cour t s det er mi nat i on, ar e i nt egr al

t o t he over al l desi gn of t he cl ai med pat ent , as di scussed bel ow.

These f eat ures can be seen cl ear l y f r om t he pat ent drawi ngs

4 Defendant denies this, but offers no evidence to dispute B.McIntires declaration. See Def. Resp. to PSUF 21. What isdisputed is the reason Sunrise stopped ordering bowls fromplaintiff. Plaintiff insinuates that it was because defendantplanned to manufacture cheap imitations of his patented bowls inChina. B. McIntire Decl. 11-13. Defendant asserts thatplaintiffs bowls no longer met certain California regulatoryrequirements. See Defendant's Response to Plaintiff'sInterrogatories - Set One 14. The dispute may be material in thatit seems to address the willfulness of the alleged infringement.

5 Defendant denies this assertion, citing the Declaration ofRobert Weinstein in Support of Sunrise Specialty Company's Motionfor Summary Judgment ("R. Weinstein Decl.") (ECF No. 51-3) 4 &6. However, the declaration does not dispute plaintiff's assertionthat the catalogue re-printed the same toilet bowl pictures thatit featured when defendant was known to be selling plaintiff'spatented design. The Declaration asserts that the Sunrise modeldoes not infringe the patent, without addressing which image wasused in the catalogue.

4



5/23

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 hemsel ves. 6

i. The beads.

The D254 Pat ent cont ai ns a promi nent and di st i nct i ve r ow of

beads t hat near l y enci r cl es t he bowl j ust beneat h t he r i m, and ends

j ust bef or e t he pl umbi ng openi ng i n t he back. Compl ai nt , Exh. A

( ECF No. 1) ( D254 Pat ent ) ; see DSUF 13. These beads, whi ch

si t at op and ar e hi ghl i ght ed by an under l i ni ng bar , ar e pr omi nent l y

di spl ayed i n si x out of t he seven pat ent dr awi ngs. See D254

Pat ent at 9- 11 ( Fi gs. 1- 5, 7) . 7

ii. The stepped-down pedestal.

The cl ai med desi gn i ncl udes a st epped- down, key- shaped

pedest al , upon whi ch t he r est of t he t oi l et bowl si t s. D254

Pat ent ; see DSUF 7. The st epped- down f eat ur e of t he desi gn i s

cl ear l y depi ct ed i n f i ve of t he seven pat ent dr awi ngs. See D254

Pat ent at 9- 10 ( Fi gs. 1- 5) .8

/ / / /

6 The court identifies here only those features that areprominent, easily identified from the drawings and plainly are apart of the overall design. Other features may well distinguishthe design, such as the cur ved, compound, backward S shape of t hebowl . D254 Pat ent ; DSUF 9. However, these other features aremore subtle, and on this motion for summary judgment, the courtcannot say that they are a part of the overall design beyond anyreasonable dispute.

7The beads ar e hi dden i n t he sevent h drawi ng, because t hebowl s r i mhi des t hemi n t he t op pl an vi ew. See D254 Pat ent at11 ( Fi g. 6) .

8The f eat ure i s not di scer ni bl e i n t he t op pl an vi ew andt he bot t om pl an vi ew because i t i s hi dden by t he r i m or by thebot t om of t he pedest al i t sel f . See D254 Pat ent at 11 ( Fi gs. 6 &7) .

5



6/23

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

iii. The Adams Apple.

The t hroat of t he cl ai med desi gn t he col umn t hat ext ends

f r om t he beads t o the pedest al when t he bowl i s vi ewed head- on

cont ai ns an Adam s Appl e, a bul ge that pr ot r udes promi nent l y f r om

t he t op of t he t hr oat . D254 Pat ent ; DSUF 8. The Adam s Appl e

i s so pr omi nent t hat i t i s vi si bl e beyond t he r i m of t he t oi l et i n

f i ve of t he seven dr awi ngs, even when t he r i mor t he pedest al hi des

t he r est of t he t hr oat ( i n t he t op pl an vi ew or t he bot t om pl an

vi ew) . See D254 Pat ent at 9- 11 ( Fi gs. 1- 3, 6 & 7) ; 9 DSUF 8.

iv. The throat.

The D254' s t hroat i t sel f has ver t i cal si des ( excl udi ng i t s

r ounded t op) , when vi ewed head- on. D254 Pat ent . That i s, when i t

i s vi ewed head- on, t her e i s no vi si bl e bul ge i n t he t hr oat and t he

si des ar e not angl ed. See D254 at 10 ( Fi g. 4) . The t hr oat i s

pr omi nent l y depi ct ed i n f our of t he seven dr awi ngs, al t hough i t sver t i cal si des can onl y be i dent i f i ed f r om t he head- on vi ew. See

D254 at 9- 10 ( Fi gs. 1- 4) .

C. The Accused Toilet Bowl.

The accused bowl i s cal l ed t he Sunr i se Bowl . DSUF 4. I t

i s undi sput ed t hat Sunr i se has sol d t hese bowl s t o i t s cust omer s,

wi t hout pl ai nt i f f s consent . PSUF 22; Def . Resp. t o PSUF 22.

Ther e ar e several undi sput ed desi gn di f f er ences bet ween t he cl ai med

9 The Adams Apple cannot be discerned in the head-on and rearview because it protrudes forward, that is, in the head-ondirection. It does not bulge to either side, and accordinglycannot be seen when viewed head-on or from the rear. See D254 at10 (Figs. 4 & 5).

6



7/23

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

desi gn and t he accused bowl . The accused bowl does not have beads

on t he r i m on t op of t he bowl , as does t he cl ai med desi gn. DSUF

6. The accused bowl does not have a pedest al wi t h a st epped

descent , whi ch t he patent ed bowl does. DSUF 7. The Adam' s Appl e

of t he accused bowl s t hr oat does not extend beyond t he t op ci r cl e

of t he bowl ( when vi ewed f r omabove) , whi ch the Adam s Appl e of t he

pat ent ed bowl does. DSUF 8. 10

II. 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) . 11 The st at ut e s use of t he t er m col or abl e i mi t at i on

10The accused bowl does, however , have a ver t i cal - si dedt hr oat , when vi ewed head- on, as does t he patent ed bowl . See D254Pat ent ; Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment ( ECF No. 50- 1) at13 ( dr awi ng opposi t e Fi g. 4) .

11 Arminak and Goodyear, along with many other cases, wereoverruled, in part, by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. denied, 556 U.S. ,129 S. Ct. 1917 (2009), but only to the extent that they appliedboth the "ordinary observer" test, described below, as well as the"point of novelty test." Egyptian Goddess established that only the"ordinary observer" should be used. This court accordingly cites

7



8/23

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

r ecogni zes t hat mi nor changes i n a desi gn ar e of t en r eadi l y made

wi t hout changi ng i t s over al l appear ance. Goodyear at 162 F. 3d. at

1117.

Obvi ousl y, 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

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 m by

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

bowl i s even wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i on on scope that t he pat ent 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 the accused bowl , 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 gn

t 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 bowl . I d. , at 1405; Hal l v. Bed Bat h & Beyond,

I nc. , 705 F. 3d 1357, 1363 ( Fed. Ci r . 2013) ( i nf r i ngement of a

them freely in respect to the portions of their holdings that arenot dependent on the "point of novelty" issue.

8



9/23

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

desi gn patent i s based on t he desi gn as a whol e) .

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 . Hal l , 705 F. 3d at 1363. 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 the exami nat i on of t he ar t i cl e upon

whi ch 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 ham Mf 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

obser ver i s t he pur chaser of t he i t em di spl ayi ng t he cl ai med

desi gn) . However , he must not be t oo ordi nary; r ather 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; 12

OddzOn Pr oduct s, 122 F. 3d at 1405 ( There 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 at

1295 ( ordi nar y observer t est ) . 13

12 Egyptian Goddess is the key authority in determininginfringement of a design patent. It appears to be the lasten bancdecision of the Federal Circuit on the topic, and discusses thepertinent issues at length.

13 Before the en banc decision in Egyptian Goddess, the courtsused the point of novelty test, in addition to the ordinaryobserver test. Under the point of novelty test, no matter how

9



10/23

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

B. Summary Judgment.

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

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) .

similar two items look, the accused device must appropriate thenovelty in the patented device which distinguishes it from theprior art. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 498 F.3d 1354,1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007), overruled, 543 F.3d 665 (2008) (en banc).In other words, the court first identified a point of noveltythat distinguished the claimed design from the prior art. If thatpoint of novelty was not present in the accused bowl, then therecould be no infringement.

The en banc court in Egyptian Goddess expressly did away with thepoint of novelty test. Nevertheless, the main legal argument ofdefendant in this case is that the court must apply the point ofnovelty test. See Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECFNo. 51-1) at 8-9. Plaintiff naturally makes much of this.However, defendant goes on to ignore that test and instead arguesthat there is no infringement under the ordinary observer test.See id., at 9-17. Accordingly, the court will overlook defendantssupposed reliance upon the point of novelty test.

10



11/23

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

Under summary j udgment pr act i ce, t he movi ng par t y bears t he

i 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

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 sbur 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

11



12/23

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 er ences suppor t ed by t he evi dence, i t i s t he nonmovi ng

par 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) .

At or al ar gument , pl ai nt i f f s counsel ar gued, f or t he f i r st

t i me, t hat Egypt i an Goddess had changed t he summar y j udgment

st andar d f or pat ent i nf r i ngement cases. The cour t di sagr ees.

I t i s t r ue t hat bef or e Egypt i an Goddess, t he Feder al Ci r cui t

appl i ed t he nor mal Rul e 56( a) st andar d i n desi gn pat ent

i nf r i ngement cases where, as here, t he quest i on was whether t heordi nar y observer woul d conf use t he desi gn of t he accused ar t i cl e

wi t h t he patent ed desi gn. See Ar mi nak, 501 F. 3d at 1319. ( We

r evi ew a gr ant of summary j udgment de novo, r evi ewi ng t he recor d

and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t he nonmovant ' s f avor t o

determi ne whether t here i s a genui ne i ssue as t o any mater i al

f act ) . However , af t er Egypt i an Goddess, t he Feder al Ci r cui t

cont i nued t o appl y t he same st andard. See I nt ernat i onal Seaway

Tr adi ng Cor p. v. Wal greens Cor p. , 589 F. 3d 1233, 1243 ( Fed. Ci r .

2009) ( Because we cannot say t hat t hese di f f erences ar e

i nsi gni f i cant as a mat t er of l aw, a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act

exi st s as t o whether t he desi gns woul d be vi ewed as subst ant i al l y

12



13/23

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 mi l ar i n t he eyes of t he or di nar y observer ar med wi t h t he

knowl edge of t he pr i or ar t ) . Mor eover , Egypt i an Goddess i t sel f

does not st ate that i t was modi f yi ng t he summary j udgment st andard

i n any way, nor does i t i dent i f y any aut hor i t y t hat woul d empower

i t t o do so.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Patent Infringement.

As di scussed above, t he i ni t i al det er mi nat i on i s whet her t he

accused bowl i s even wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i ons on scope pl ai nt i f f

i mposed t hr ough hi s patent dr awi ngs. That i s because t he cl ai med

pat ent i s f or a desi gn, and t hus by i t s nat ur e i t has no scope

beyond t he dr awi ngs of t he pat ent i t sel f . See I n r e Mann, 861 F. 2d

1581, 1582 ( Fed. Ci r . 1988) ( Desi gn patent s have al most no scope.

The cl ai m at bar , as i n al l desi gn cases, i s l i mi t ed t o what i s

shown i n t he appl i cat i on dr awi ngs) .The cour t concl udes t hat t he cl ai med desi gn i s f or a t oi l et

wi t h enci r cl i ng beads, a st epped- down pedest al , a pr ot r udi ng Adam s

Appl e, 14 and ( as vi ewed head- on) , a ver t i cal t hr oat col umn. These

desi gn f eat ur es ar e so pr omi nent i n t he pat ent dr awi ngs, and so

pl ai nl y compr i se t he desi gn of t he t oi l et , t hat t he cour t concl udes

t hat no r easonabl e j ur or coul d f i nd t hat t hese f eat ur es are si mpl y

f l our i shes st andi ng apar t f r om t he t oi l et desi gn. Rat her , any

r easonabl e j ur or coul d onl y f i nd t hat t hese f eat ur es compr i se the

14 By protruding, the court refers to its characteristic ofprotruding beyond the rim of the toilet, not merely its prominence.

13



14/23

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 oi l et desi gn. 15 That i s, pr oduct s whi ch do not i ncl ude t hese

el ement s ar e si mpl y not wi t hi n t he scope of pl ai nt i f f s pat ent , and

t her ef or e cannot i nf r i nge i t .

I n a case r ai si ng si mi l ar i ssues, t he Feder al Ci r cui t

expl ai ned i t s concl usi on as f ol l ows:

Tur ni ng f i r st t o cl ai m const r uct i on, t he ' 620 pat entcl ai ms, wi t h emphasi s added, t he or nament al desi gn f ora vehi cl e t op si gn hol der , as shown and descr i bed i n t hepat ent . Si gni f i cant l y, t he onl y desi gn shown anddescr i bed i n t he ' 620 pat ent i s a vehi cl e si gn t hati ncl udes, i nt er al i a, t r i angul ar ver t i cal r i bs and anupper pr ot r usi on. Each of t he pat ent ' s si x dr awi ngf i gur es shows a si gn havi ng t hese f eat ur es, whi ch gi vet he si gn a di st i nct i ve or nament al appear ance. No ot herdesi gn i s di scl osed or suggest ed i n t he ' 620 pat ent . I f ,as HTH now cont ends, t he ver t i cal r i bs and upperpr ot r usi on wer e f unct i onal , not or nament al , f eat ur es, HTHcoul d have omi t t ed t hese f eat ur es f r om i t s pat entappl i cat i on dr awi ngs. HTH di d not do so, however , andt hus ef f ect i vel y l i mi t ed t he scope of i t s pat ent cl ai mbyi ncl udi ng t hose f eat ur es i n i t . Thus, because no ot herdesi gn i s di scl osed i n t he ' 620 pat ent , we i nt er pr et t hecl ai m as bei ng l i mi t ed t o a desi gn t hat i ncl udes among

i t s or nament al f eat ur es t r i angul ar ver t i cal r i bs and anupper pr ot r usi on.

El mer , 67 F. 3d at 1577 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( emphasi s i n t ext ) .

Si mi l ar l y, because t he D254 Pat ent di scl oses no ot her desi gn, t he

cour t i nt er pr et s t he cl ai m as bei ng l i mi t ed t o a desi gn t hat

i ncl udes among i t s ornament al f eat ur es: enci r cl i ng beads around t he

r i m; a st epped- down, key- shaped pedest al ; a ver t i cal t hr oat ; and a

pr ot r udi ng Adam s Appl e.

15 The complete absence of encircling beads from any prior artdesigns other than plaintiffs own Old Bowl would put anyordinary observer on notice that the beads are not incidental orirrelevant flourishes, but a design feature intended to set thistoilet apart from all others.

14



15/23

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

By way of compar i son, i ssues l i ke t he count of t he beads, t he

wi dt h of t he t hr oat , t he degr ee t o whi ch the Adam s Appl e pr ot r udes

( t hat i s, how f ar i t pr ot r udes beyond t he r i m) , t he st ubbi ness or

el ongat i on of t he key- shaped pedest al , and t he extent of t he bowl s

cur vat ur e ( as opposed t o t he f act of cur vat ur e) , ar e t he t ypes of

var i ances t hat per haps coul d f al l wi t hi n t he col or abl e i mi t at i on

of t he cl ai med pat ent .

Pl ai nt i f f has submi t t ed document s t hat compar e: ( 1) t he D254

Pat ent dr awi ngs wi t h photos of t he accused bowl ( ECF No. 50- 10) ;

and ( 2) phot os of t he embodi ment of t he D254 Pat ent wi t h phot os of

t he accused bowl ( ECF No. 50- 11) . Def endant does not di sput e that

t hese dr awi ngs and photos accur atel y depi ct t he cl ai med and accused

bowl s.

The phot os show t hat t he accused bowl has no beads ar ound i t s

r i m, t hat i t has a pedest al wi t hout t he st epped- down desi gn( al t hough i t i s key- shaped) , and t hat i t s Adams Appl e does not

pr ot r ude beyond t he r i m of t he t oi l et . 16 Pl ai nt i f f s pat ent

dr awi ngs, on t he ot her hand, do not di scl ose a bead- l ess t oi l et ,

nor one wi t hout a st epped- down pedest al , nor one wi t hout a

pr ot r udi ng Adam s Appl e.

Nei t her si de has ar gued t hat pl ai nt i f f was somehow pr ecl uded

f r om di scl osi ng al t er nat e desi gns t hat woul d have cover ed

def endant s accused bowl , yet he chose not t o i ncl ude them i n hi s

/ / / /

16 However, the accused bowl does have a vertical throat.

15



16/23

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

desi gn pat ent . 17 Al t er nat e depi ct i ons of each of t hese coul d have

shown, f or exampl e: r i ms wi t hout beads, or wi t h var yi ng numbers of

beads; t hr oat s wi t hout Adam s Appl es or wi t h var yi ng l evel s of

pr omi nence and pr ot r usi on; and pedest al s wi t h more or f ewer , or no,

st eps. 18

By omi t t i ng t hese al t er nat e desi gns, pl ai nt i f f l i mi t ed t he

cover age of hi s pat ent t o t he f eat ur es shown i n t he dr awi ngs.

El mer, 67 F. 3d at 1577. The accused bowl does not cont ai n t he

beads, t he st epped- down pedest al , or t he pr ot r udi ng Adam s Appl e,

al l of whi ch l i mi t t he scope of t he cl ai med pat ent . 19 Accor di ngl y,

t he accused bowl cannot be f ound t o i nf r i nge t he cl ai med patent .

B. Other Considerations

1. Design as a Whole.

Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat t he f act - f i nder must consi der t he desi gn

17 Any number of considerations could have influenced thisdecision (for example, plaintiff may have believed that a designthat omitted or varied the bead count, the protruding Adams Apple,and/or the stepped-down pedestal was not patentable), and there isno need for the court to speculate on what they were.

18 A design patent in another case on this courts docketdepicts alternate configurations in just this way. See Sofpool v.Kmart, 2:10-cv-3333, ECF No. 24 (E.D. Cal.) (depicting two, four,and an indefinite repetition of strut assemblies).

19 The mere prominence of the Adams Apple is not the issuehere. The accused bowl could well infringe the patent (if thiswere the only difference) even if it were simply a matter ofwhether it copied a prominent Adams Apple, since reasonablejurors could differ on whether the feature was as prominent as the

Adams Apple in the claimed design. However, the patent drawingsclearly show that the Adams Apple protrudes beyond the rim of thetoilet. The patent drawings highlight this aspect of the designin the above and below perspectives. In the accused bowl, the

Adams Apple does not protrude beyond the rim.

16



17/23

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

as a whol e, r at her t han f ocusi ng on i ndi vi dual desi gn el ement s.

See OddzOn, 122 F. 3d at 1404. However , t he desi gn el ement s t hat

gi ve t he t oi l et i t s di st i nct i ve or nament al desi gn must be

consi dered, and must be pr esent i n t he accused bowl , or t here can

be no i nf r i ngement . See El mer , 67 F. 3d at 1577. By t hei r nat ur e

t hey gi ve t he t oi l et i t s di st i nct i ve or nament al desi gn t he

beads, t he pr ot r udi ng Adam s Appl e, and t he st epped- down pedest al

r el at e t o t he over al l desi gn. Accor di ngl y, t he absence of t hese

cri t i cal desi gn f eat ur es f r om t he accused bowl i s f at al t o

pl ai nt i f f s i nf r i ngement cl ai m.

2. Prior Art.

The cour t has not t hor oughl y descr i bed t he pr i or ar t submi t t ed

by t he par t i es, r ef er r i ng t o i t onl y i n passi ng. That i s because

t he pat ent dr awi ngs on t hei r f ace make cl ear t hat t he cl ai med

desi gn does not encompass def endant s bead- l ess t oi l et desi gn i nwhi ch the pr ot r udi ng Adam s Appl e and t he st epped- down pedest al are

absent :

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 hecl ai med and accused desi gns ar e 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 .

Egypt i an Goddess, 543 F. 3d at 678. However , an exami nat i on of t he

pr i or ar t submi t t ed by t he par t i es onl y hi ghl i ght s t he desi gn

f eat ur es, si nce t hey ar e pr esent i n some pr i or ar t , and absent i n

17



18/23

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

ot her s. 20

C. Patent Invalidity.

As an al t er nat i ve gr ound i n opposi ng t o pl ai nt i f f s summar y

j udgment mot i on, def endant br i ef l y asser t s t hat pl ai nt i f f s pat ent

i s i nval i d f or obvi ousness. Because t he cour t deni es pl ai nt i f f s

summar y j udgment mot i on on t he grounds t hat def endant has not

i nf r i nged t he pat ent , i t need not consi der t hi s al t er nat e ar gument .

The cour t not es t hat def endant has not sought a decl ar at i on of

i nval i di t y i n i t s own summary j udgment mot i on.

IV. CONCLUSION

For t he f oregoi ng r easons:

1. Def endant s mot i on f or summar y j udgment ( ECF No. 51) , i s

GRANTED;

2. Pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or summar y j udgment ( ECF No. 50) , i s

DENIED;

3. The Cl er k i s di r ect ed t o ENTER JUDGMENT f or def endant ,

and t o cl ose t hi s case.

I T I S SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 6, 2013.

20 For example, as noted, there is no prior art containingencircling beads, other than plaintiffs own Old Bowl. The priorart shows that the relative prominence of the Adams Apple is usedin several designs to distinguish them from each other. The priorart also shows that a stepped-down pedestal is generally notincluded in the design, appearing (prominently, in any event), inonly one prior art design.

18



19/23

Case 2:11-cv-02495-LKK-CKD Document 1 Filed 09/20/11 Page 7 of 15Case 2:11-cv-02495-LKK-CKD Document 69-1 Filed 05/07/13 Page 1 of 5

The Director of the United StatesPatent and Trademark OfficeHas received an application for a new, origi-nal, and ornamental design for an article ofmanufacture. The title and description of thedesign are enclosed. The requirements of lawhave been complied with, and it has been de-termined that a patent on the design shall begranted under the law.Therefore, this

United States PatentGrants to the person(s) having title to this patentthe right to exclude others from making, using,offering for sale, or selling the design through-out the United States ofAmerica, or importingthe design into the United States ofAmerica forthe term of ourteen years from the date ofgrantof his patent.

Director of he United States Patent and Trademark Office


20/23

Case 2:11-cv-02495-LKK-CKD Document 1 Filed 09/20/11 Page 8 of 15Case 2:11-cv-02495-LKK-CKD Document 69-1 Filed 05/07/13 Page 2 of 5I IIII 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111USOOD534254S(12) United States Design Patent oo) Patent No.: US D534,254 S** Dec. 26,2006cintire (45) Date of Patent:(54) TOILET BOWL(76) Inventor: Bryan C. Mcinti re, Mac The AntiquePlumber Inc., 6325 Elvas Ave.,Sacramento, CA (US) 95819(**) Term: 14 Years(21) Appl. No.: 29/221,090(22) Filed: Jan. 10, 2005(51) LOC (8) Cl .................................................... 2302(52) U.S. Cl ...................................................... D23/295(58) Field of Classification Search ........ 023/273-274,D23/295-301, 303, 309, 313; 4/663--665,4/300-300.3 ,312-313, 328-329, 353, 420,4/443--446, 449, 459-460, 479-480, 902,4/905, DIG. 11, DIG. 12, DIG. 15

See application file for complete search history.(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS. D44,165 S * 6/1913 Cochran ... ............. .... D23/295. D84,974 S * 911931 Brain ........................ D23/295D89,343 S * 2/1933 Helfrich ...... .......... .... D23/2952,499,115 A * 2/1950 Shobe ....................... D23/309

OTHER PUBLICATIONSClow Plumbing Fixture Catalog No. 50: toilets p. 65, 1942.*6 Sheets Labeled: "Old"-10 Liter per Flush Bowl byApplicants 6 Photo Views 1/6--6/6. cited by examiner

Primary Examiner-Robert A. Delehanty(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-John R. Flanagan(57) CLAIMThe ornamental design for a toilet bowl, as shown anddescribed.

DESCRIPTIONFIG. 1 is a perspective view of a toilet bowl showing mynew design;FIG. 2 is a left side elevational view of the toilet bowl ofFIG. 1;FIG. 3 is a right side elevational view of the toilet bowl ofFIG. 1;FIG. 4 is a front elevational view of the toilet bowl of FIG.1;FIG. 5 is a rear elevational view of the toilet bowl of FIG1;FIG. 6 is a top plan view of the toilet bowl of FIG. 1; and,FIG. 7 is a bottom plan view of the toilet bowl of FIG. 1.

1 Claim, 3 Drawing Sheets


21/23


Dec. 26, 2006 Sheet 1 of 3 US D534,254 S

00000000000000000000

Fig. 2


22/23


U.S. Patent Dec. 26, 2006 Sheet 2 of 3 US D534,254 S

0000000000000000000

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

IIFig. 5


23/23


U.S. Patent Dec. 26, 2006 Sheet 3 of 3 US D534,254 S

Fig. 6

sunrise - order granting sj

Documents