The New "Extra-Ordinary" Observer Test For Design Patent Infringement–On A Crash Course With The Supreme Court's Precedent in Gorham v. White, 8 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 354 (2009)

Authors

Christopher V. Carani

Citations to This Work

• Hannah Brown, Having Your Cake and Eating It Too: Intellectual Property Protection For Cake Design, 56 IDEA: J. Franklin Pierce for Intell. Prop. 31 (2016)

Abstract

Over one hundred and thirty-five years ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in Gorham v. White, laid down the test for design patent infringement called the “ordinary observer” test—one that is administered through the eyes of men generally. It has remained the test ever since. Recently, in Arminak & Assoc., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc and Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., the Federal Circuit has improperly replaced this “ordinary observer” test with an “extra-ordinary observer” test—one that uses persons who are versed in the trade. In order to bring design patent jurisprudence in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Gorham, the Federal Circuit should restore the “ordinary” requirement in the “ordinary observer” test.

Recommended Citation

Christopher V. Carani, The New "Extra-Ordinary" Observer Test For Design Patent Infringement–On A Crash Course With The Supreme Court's Precedent in Gorham v. White, 8 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 354 (2009)