Federal Circuit Decision Highlights Importance of Design Patent Titles

Curver Luxembourg v. Home Expressions is a design patent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that supports the 2015 and 2018 changes made to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure that says title “may contribute to defining the scope of a claim.” In the case, the Federal Circuit ruled that the language in patent titles and claims can limit the scope of design patents. Managing Intellectual Property contacted Finnegan partner Elizabeth Ferrill for her perspective on the ruling.

The case involved a design patent owned by Curver Luxembourg called ‘Pattern for a Chair’. While the title, claim, and figure descriptions referenced a chair, the actual figures in the application just illustrated a pattern. Home Expressions began selling baskets using the same pattern, and Curver accused them of infringing their patent. Curver argued that because the figures did not show a chair, the patent applied more broadly. The Federal Circuit disagreed, stating that by including the reference to a chair, the scope of the patent was limited to only being used on a chair.

Additionally, the title of the patent was suggested by the patent examiner, not the applicant, after the applicant initially tried to file the patent using a different name. However, the examiner told the applicant that the title was too vague. Beth said, “I am wary of suggestions made by examiners, not because they aren’t trying to be helpful. I just worry that they are not perhaps as steeped in the case law and oftentimes examiners don’t understand the implications of what they’re suggesting. I think it’s really important to get qualified attorneys. In this case it can have pretty significant ramifications.”

Beth also stressed the importance of being careful and thoughtful when filing patent applications. She said, “Applicants need to consider how they plan to enforce their designs, and as a result they need to carefully prosecute their applications with an eye towards enforcement.”

Lastly, Beth provided her thoughts on the Federal Circuit classifying the patent as a “surface ornamentation disembodied from any identifiable product”. She said, “I think that the figures of the patent do not show that. I think they show a design that is embodied in an article, and I think this patent is consistent with similar patents which the patent office has issued for many designs such as building panels and fabric.”