1. “Whether the District Court committed reversible error by limiting the scope of the ’946 Patent claim to a ‘chair’ embodying the design illustrated in the patent figures based on the title of the patent, when the figures themselves do not depict a chair or require that the claimed design be used in a chair?”
2. “Whether the District Court committed reversible error by focusing entirely on the articles of manufacture, rather than the patented ornamental design, in its infringement analysis, when the test for infringement is the same as the test for anticipation and anticipation turns solely on the patented ornamental design itself, without reference to its particular article of manufacture?”
3. “Whether the District Court committed reversible error by limiting the scope of the ’946 Patent claim, under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, to a ‘chair’ embodying the design illustrated in the patent figures, based on the patentee changing the title of the patent, when the figures themselves were not changed and do not require that the claimed design be used in a chair?”
1. “Given that long-standing precedent, unchallenged regulation, and agency practice all consistently support the view that design patents are granted only for a design applied to an article of manufacture, and not a design per se, we hold that claim language can limit the scope of a design patent where the claim language supplies the only instance of an article of manufacture that appears nowhere in the figures.”
2. “[W]e are unpersuaded that the statement in Glavas about anticipation necessarily impacts our infringement decision.” “[W]e find that Curver’s reliance on Glavas lacks merit.”
3. “Because the “pattern for a chair” amendments were made pursuant to § 1.153 requiring the designation of a particular article of manufacture, and this requirement was necessary to secure the patent, we hold that the scope of the ’946 patent is limited by those amendments, notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to update the figures to reflect those limiting amendments.”
“We have considered Curver’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of Home Expressions’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim of design patent infringement.”
