High Point Design LLC v. Buyer's Direct, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that when identifying a primary reference, a “district court should do a side-by-side comparison of the two designs to determine if they create the same visual impression”
• explaining that a “finder of fact” must identify a primary reference
• “Assessing [these five] factors may help determine whether a claimed design, as a whole, is ‘dictated by’ functional considerations.” (emphasis added)
• discussing “good cause” in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)
• rejecting district court’s approach of analyzing whether each feature of a slipper “can perform functions” and holding that 11 the proper inquiry is into “the functionality of the particular design” of those features (emphasis added
• “Even if the district court was implicitly applying the good cause standard under Rule 16(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).