"Point Of Novelty" Test Remains For Design Patent Infringement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.23.06
In Lawman Armor Corporation v. Winner International, LLC et al. (No. 05-1253; February 22, 2006), a Federal Circuit panel affirms a district court's summary judgment of non-infringement of a design patent for a vehicle steering wheel lock assembly. In the district court , Lawman identified eight points of novelty of the patented design , to which Winner responded by identifying patents depicting each of those eight points. Accordingly, the district court found that the points of novelty were found in the prior art and granted summary judgment of non-infringement. The panel finds that Lawman made no attempt to show that the district court erred in its decision providing that the eight points of novelty are disclosed in the prior art. The Federal Circuit panel rejects Lawman's argument that there was no suggestion to combine the prior art elements to achieve the patented design, essentially arguing that the combination of the prior art elements is itself a ninth point of novelty. This decision maintains the long-standing "point of novelty" design patent infringement test, namely, that an accused device must appropriate the novel features of the patented design, specifically those features that distinguish it from the prior art.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
