Saint-Gobain Calmer, Inc. (now MeadWestvaco Calmer) v. Arminak & Associates, Inc. (on petition for certiorari 2008)
In 2007, the Federal Circuit dealt a serious blow to design patent protection by determining that an intermediate corporate purchaser is the “ordinary observer” for infringement analysis. A professional corporate purchaser is presumably more likely to see differences between the patented design and an accused infringing device — thus making infringement more difficult to prove.
Calmer’s design patent, for instance, covers a sprayer shroud that is then combined with the trigger mechanism, bottle, etc.; filled with some liquid; and shipped to Wal-Mart for retail sale. The Federal Circuit’s holding looks to the typical buyer at the point where the allegedly infringing shroud is first sold to determine whether that individual would believe that “the patented design as a whole is substantially the same as the accused design.”
Calmer has now petitioned the Supreme Court asking two questions:
- Whether the [Federal Circuit’s] use of expert viewpoints to determine design patent infringement is in direct conflict with this Court’s decision in Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 529 (1871)?
- Whether the [Federal Circuit’s] test for design patent infringement of a component product, which considers deceptive similarities only as to the first purchaser of any product including the patented design, directly conflicts with its own precedent and with this Court’s “ordinary observer” test mandated by Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 529 (1871), by excluding not only unsophisticated purchasers but also later purchasers of products including the patented design as a component?
As I write in an upcoming paper, the justification for design patent protections is more akin to traditional trademark policy than utility patent policy. With that in mind, it makes some sense allow design patents to operate at the retail level.