DAVID A. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANLEY WORKS, INC., Defendant-Appellee., 597 F.3d 1288

Summary

The owner contended that the district court improperly construed the design claim of the patent by separating the functional aspects of the design from the ornamental ones, rather than considering the design as a whole. The owner also argued that the finding of non-infringement failed to perform a comparison of the prior art, the patented design, and the manufacturer's tool. The appellate court held, however, that the finding of non-infringement was proper. The owner's multi-function tool comprised several elements that were driven purely by utility, and the functional aspects of the patented design were properly factored out in construing the scope of the design claim. Further, from the perspective of the ordinary observer, the only similarities between the patented tool and the manufacturer's tools were those of unprotectable functional elements, and the overall visual effect of the manufacturer's tools was more rounded with fewer blunt edges as compared to the owner's tool, which ...