United States: Recent Design Decisions Provide Insight For Design Patent Prosecution

Three recent decisions relating to design patents provide useful insights into design patent prosecution.  First, the PTAB recently instituted two IPR petitions directed to design patents, bringing the total number of instituted design petitions to nine.  In addition, the Central District of California recently found a design patent directed to an interlocking floor mat to be invalid as obvious on summary judgment.

Skechers USA, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2017-00620, -00621

In a November 2016 post, we discussed a series of petitions Skechers filed against Nike involving design patents directed to athletic shoes.  At that time, all eight of Skecher's petitions were denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  In a new series of petitions filed on different grounds, Skechers once again sought to invalidate the same Nike design patents.  This time around, however, the PTAB granted institution on two of Skechers' petitions, IPR2017-00620 and IPR2017-00621, and denied institution on the remaining five.

Skechers' petitions for IPR2017-00620 and IPR2017-00621 involved design patents D723,783 and D723,781, respectively, which are both directed to the design of the "midsole" (Fig. 1 of '783 and '781 patents), "outsole" (Fig. 1 of '783 and '781 patents), and heel (Fig. 3 of '783 and '781 patents) of an athletic shoe.

Nike also urged the PTAB to exercise its discretion to deny a later petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because several of the references were submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) during prosecution.  For its § 314(a) argument, Nike argued that all seven of the Nvidia factors weighed against institution, including that the two primary references relied on by Skechers in the petition were brought before the Examiner during prosecution.  In response, the PTAB considered only whether the references had been brought forward during a previous IPR proceeding,[3] which they had not.  Further, the PTAB did not find Nike's § 325(d) argument persuasive, because Nike "did not direct [the PTAB's] attention to any substantive discussion of the identified references by either the examiner or the applicant during prosecution."[4]  As such, the PTAB did not find denial of institution to be warranted on these grounds.Skechers claimed that the designs were obvious over multiple prior art references.  Nike attempted to swear behind two of the references, CN1388 and RCD 0005, because they were published after the invention date of both design patents.  To support its argument, Nike submitted a declaration from Mark Miner, the named inventor, that contained three attached documents corroborating Miner's statement that "the claimed design was conceived and/or reduced to practice in the U.S. on or before June 22, 2011"—a date prior to the two prior art references being published.  The PTAB found that the Miner Declaration was "insufficient evidence to support [Nike's] attempt to establish an earlier priority date for the [design patents]."[1]  In particular, the three attached documents failed to illustrate the alleged date of conception and/or reduction to practice.  Therefore, the PTAB found the CN1388 and RCD 0005 references to be classified as prior art.[2]

It remains to be seen whether the '783 and '781 patents will be found unpatentable. Final Written Decisions on these two IPRs are expected in mid-2018.

Parallax Group Int'l, LLC v. Incstores LLC (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017)[5]

Parallax brought an infringement action against Incstores in the Central District of California, asserting the D543,764 patent ("the '764 patent"), which was directed to a design for interlocking floor mats.  According to the '764 patent's specification, the top (Fig. 1) and bottom (Fig. 2) sides of the floor mat were different colors.

Incstores moved for summary judgment, claiming the '764 patent was invalid as anticipated and obvious.  In its anticipation analysis, the court looked to whether the '764 design was "identical in all material respects" to the EVAHWCG reference.[6]  The court also made a passing reference to the Federal Circuit's International Seaway decision from 2009, noting that the ordinary observer test must logically be the sole test for anticipation. Although the EVAHWCG reference was "somewhat blurry" and it "appeared to have more 'teeth' at the boundaries than the '764 patent," the court found that discrepancies between the corners of the two designs (e.g., smaller corner tooth as compared to side teeth) left a genuine issue of material fact that could not be decided through summary judgment.[7]

For obviousness, the court found that, despite minor differences, the EVAHWGC reference had "design characteristics . . . [that were] basically the same as the claimed design" of the '764 patent.[8]  The mats were both found to have a square perimeter made up of similarly configured teeth and dual layering and coloring.  Parallax argued that differences in the spacing and sizing of the teeth distinguished its design from that of the EVAHWGC reference. The court noted that it would have been obvious to arrive at the same number of interlocking teeth per side (10 in the case of the '764 patent) because the prior art references taught floor mats having 3­–15 teeth per side.  Further, any differences in tooth shape were found to be de minimis by the court because the overall visual impression of the floor mat would not differ.[9]

Parallax attempted to fend off the obviousness finding by arguing the existence of secondary considerations, such as commercial success.  The court, however, did not find a sufficient nexus between the commercial success and alleged merits of the claimed design to defeat the obviousness finding.[10]  Thus, the court found the claimed design of the '764 patent obvious and granted Incstores's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity.

Lessons Learned

The institution decisions in the Skechers case give insight into how events that happen during prosecution may affect proceedings before the PTAB.  For 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to apply, it appears that the patent owner must at least show that a reference cited in a petition for IPR was substantively discussed during prosecution by either the examiner or the applicant.

From the Parallax decision, it is interesting to note that the court appears to have considered two different standards for anticipation.  The court noted the "identical in all material respects" standard from Hupp v. Siroflex, as well as the "ordinary observer" standard from International Seaway.  Both opinions were panel decisions of the Federal Circuit, and thus there remains some ambiguity about which standard should govern. Although the MPEP mentions both tests, recently, examiners in the design technology center appear to have applied the "ordinary observer" standard in favor of the "identical in all material respects" test.  Cases like the Parallax decision suggest that both standards may continue to be relevant during prosecution.


[1] Institution Decision, IPR2017-00620, Paper 13 at 10; see also Institution Decision, IPR2017-00621, Paper 13 at 11.

[2] Id. at 11; see also IPR2017-00621, Paper 13 at 12.

[3] Id. at 12; see also IPR2017-00621, Paper 13 at 13.

[4] Id.; see also IPR2017-00621, Paper 13 at 13.

[5] Order Regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity, Parallax Group Int'l, LLC v. Incstores LLC, No. 8:-cv-00929 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017).

[6] Id. at 7.

[7] Id. at 7-8.

[8] Id. at 9.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 10-11.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

1 Oct 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

Finnegan partner Doug Rettew will consider recent Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) developments during Practicing Law Institute’s Intellectual Property Institute.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions