Walter E. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that in assessing whether prior art invalidates a patent, the court must consider whether prior art “create[s] the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design”
• \The error in the district court's approach is that it construed [the] claimed design too broadly.\
• “The error in the district court’s approach is that it construed [the] claimed design too broadly.”
• “Without . . . a pri- mary reference, it is improper to invalidate a design patent on grounds of obviousness.”
• “Once this primary reference is found, other references may be used to modify it to create a design that has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.”
• “Before one can begin to combine prior art designs, however, one must find a single reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).