1. “Whether the district court abused its discretion when it applied the wrong legal standard when analyzing Jacki Easlick Companies’ likelihood of success on the merits on their design patent infringement claim by comparing individual design features rather than the overall appearance of the products and by failing to consider designs in the context of the prior art?”
2. “Whether the district court abused its discretion when it found that the Jacki Easlick Companies did not provide evidence that they were suffering irreparable harm, when Accencyc did not contest the issue before the district court and the district court was apparently unaware of the evidence that Jacki Easlick Companies submitted to establish irreparable harm?”
1. “[T]he district court explicitly stated that it was ‘comparing the overall visual effect of the two products.’ . . . This is not—as Jacki Easlick argues—a situation where the district court’s ‘concentration on small differences in isolation distracted from the overall impression of the claimed ornamental features.’ . . . Instead, the district court correctly considered ‘the ornamental features and analyze[d] how they impact the overall design.’ . . . Considering distinguishing features—as the district court did here—is not legal error. And it is hard to imagine how a court could reasonably conduct this analysis without pointing such features out. . . . But ‘[c]omparing the claimed and accused designs with the prior art is beneficial only when the claimed and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar.’ . . . Regardless, as the district court explained in deciding Jacki Easlick’s motion for reconsideration, a prior art analysis would not have changed the outcome of the district court’s preliminary injunction ruling.”
2. “Mere citations to case law recognizing the existence of each type of alleged harm accompanied by conclusory statements that those harms are occurring are inadequate to meet the requisite burden The district court did not abuse its discretion in carrying out its irreparable-harm analysis.”
