Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that consideration of prior art is only required where the accused and claimed designs appear “substantially the same” in the first instance
• holding that the “ordinary observer” test is the proper standard for design patent infringement
• explaining that it “may be helpful to point out . . . . various features of the claimed design”
• explaining that courts must be wary not focus “on each individual described feature .. . rather than on the design as a whole’
• explaining that “a trial court can usefully guide the finder of fact” by distinguishing between functional and non-functional aspects of the design
• explaining that “a district court’s decision regarding the level of detail to be used in describing the claimed design is a matter within the court’s discretion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).