The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a finding of no copyright infringement and no design patent infringement, noting that both of these issues are fact-intensive and often not particularly appropriate to resolution on summary judgment. Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc., Case No. 05-1159 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2006) (Rader, J.). With both causes of action, given the subjective component of potential confusion, "conclusions about reasonable jurors are difficult to make on an issue of this factual dimension."
Amini sued Anthony for infringement of its copyrights and design patent in the "carved ornamental woodwork" of two lines of bedroom furniture. After comparing the parties’ two product lines and taking appropriate evidence, the district court granted summary judgment of no infringement (under both theories). Amini appealed.
On the copyright infringement claims, the Federal Circuit reversed, noting that the similarities between the two product lines were such that a reasonable juror might conclude that there had been infringement. The Federal Circuit noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s inverse-ratio rule (which allows "a lesser showing of substantial similarity if there is a strong showing of access") made that conclusion plausible and held "[t]he record does not conclusively resolve the question of the access of Mr. Chang, Anthony’s designer, to the protected work before the creation of the Anthony products."
On the design patent claim, the Court also reversed, underscoring the importance of evaluating the possibility of consumer deception that arises as a result of similarities in the overall design, not of similarities in ornamental features considered in isolation. The Federal Circuit found that the trial court applied a claim construction that focused too narrowly on the isolated ornamental features, while overlooking the fact that the patent also depicted these features in the context of the overall bed view.
The Federal Circuit rejected the trial court’s finding that no reasonable jury could find infringement of Amini’s design patent. The trial court mistakenly analyzed each element separately instead of analyzing the design as a whole from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The trial court was correct to factor out the functional aspects of various design elements, but the Court held that discounting of functional elements must not convert the overall infringement test to an element-by-element comparison.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
