Bar Code

Case Summaries

Contact Us Contact Us

1.800.553.9910

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. and ADI Torkiya v. Swisa, Inc. and Dror Swisa

August 29, 2007

United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

[1] Case No.: 06-1562

[2] Case Name:

EGYPTIAN GODDESS, INC. AND ADI TORKIYA V. SWISA, INC. AND DROR SWISA

Dyk, Archer, Moore, Moore (dissenting)

[3] Date of Decision: August 29, 2007

[4] "POINT OF NOVELTY" IN DESIGN PATENTS INQUIRES WHETHER THE COMBINATION OF DESIGN ELEMENTS IN THE PATENTED DESIGN ARE A "NON-TRIVIAL ADVANCE OVER THE PRIOR ART."[6] Key Words:
Prior Art, Infringement, Design Patent, Summary Judgment, Point of Novelty
[5] Patent No(s).: 467,389[7] Case Link:
http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1562.pdf
Procedural Background:
Summary of the Case:

Egyptian Goddess appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas' grant of Summary Judgment of noninfringement of the design patent on the grounds that the alleged infringing product did not appropriate the point of novelty of the claimed design.

Patent

The patent-at-issue covered an "ornamental nail buffer" with a hollow tubular frame and with abrasive pads attached to the sides of the frame.  The embodiment of the patent, as shown in its illustration, had four sides.  The accused design had three sides. 

The District Court for the Northern District of Texas found, and the Federal Circuit agreed that the design elements of the accused device did not appropriate the point of novelty of the design elements of the patented design.  The Federal Circuit noted that, in order to assert that a design infringes on an existing, patented design, the accused design must have the same "point of novelty" as the patented design.  The patentee may craft its contentions about the what point of novelty is, but must ultimately show that the design elements that constitute this "point of novelty" present a "non-trivial advance over the prior art."

 Finding that the combination of design elements that Egyptian Goddess contended comprised its point of novelty combination all existed in the prior art, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court's noninfringement determination.

 Judge Dyk issued a dissenting opinion contending that the majority's "non-trivial advance" standard was a new rule for the "point of novelty" test.

My Pages

Sign up for email updates and track your favorite web pages