The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the
district court improperly resolved a genuine dispute of material
fact with respect to summary judgment of invalidity for design
patent obviousness because a reasonable fact finder could have
concluded that the primary prior art reference did not create
"basically the same" visual impression as the asserted
designed patent. Spigen Korea Co., Ltd. v. Ultraproof Inc. et
al., Case Nos. 19-1435; -1717 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2020)
(Reyna, J.) (Lourie, J., dissented without opinion).
Spigen filed a lawsuit against Ultraproof alleging infringement
of three design patents directed to a cellular phone case.
Ultraproof filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity,
arguing that Spigen's design patents were obvious in view of a
combination of a primary prior art reference and a secondary prior
art reference. Spigen opposed Ultraproof's motion, arguing that
its design patents were not obvious, and that underlying
