High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.

730 F.3d 1301 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D owns the '183 patent and is the manufacturer of slippers known as SNOOZIES®. The '183 patent recites one claim, for 'the ornamental design for a slipper, as shown and described.' The patent discloses two different soles: a smooth bottom and a sole with two groups of raised dots. D alleges that SNOOZIES® are an embodiment of the design disclosed in the '183 patent. High Point (P) manufactures and distributes the accused FUZZY BABBA® slippers. On June 22, 2011, D sent P a cease and desist letter, asserting infringement of the '183 patent. In response, P filed for a declaratory judgment that the manufacturing and sale of FUZZY BABBA® slippers did not infringe the '183 patent and (2) that the '183 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. D filed counterclaims for infringement of the '183 patent and for infringement of the trade dress found in D's SNOOZIES® slippers. D also filed a third-party complaint alleging that the Retail Entities infringed the '183 patent and infringed D's trade dress based on sales of P's FUZZY BABBA® slippers. The district court granted P's motion for summary judgment, holding the '183 patent invalid on the ground that the design claimed in it was both (1) obvious in light of the prior art and (2) primarily functional rather than primarily ornamental. The court characterized the '183 patent as disclosing 'slippers with an opening for a foot that contains a fuzzy (fleece) lining and have a smooth outer surface.' The court found that Woolrich, had, prior to the effective filing date of the '183 patent, sold two different models of footwear: the 'Penta' and the 'Laurel Hill'. D appealed.