Chef'n Can't Halt Sales of Trudeau's Vegetable Steamer
In a case testing the scope of a design patent after the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, local food-appliance innovator, Chef'n Corporation, was recently unsuccessful in obtaining a preliminary injunction against competitor, Trudeau Corporation of Boucherville, Quebec, Canada.
From Judge Pechman's order:
"A visual comparison of the ‘503 design and the Trudeau steamer demonstrates certain similarities, but an ordinary observer with knowledge of the prior art would not confuse the two. Both have very slightly concave center circles surrounded by wider, more concave circular brim. (See Holcomb Decl., Ex. K at 1-9.) There are, however, two striking visual distinctions between the ‘503 Patent and the Trudeau steamer. First, unlike Trudeau’s steamer which has only a flat center and one change in concavity, the ‘503 Patent possesses circumferential rings illustrating multiple degrees of concavity. The ‘503 design has two intermediate rings between the center of the steamer and the top ridge. ‘503 Patent, Fig. 4. Trudeau’s steamer, in contrast, has only one intermediate change in concavity. (Holcomb Decl., Ex. K at 6.) Second, Chef’n’s design possesses a small, depressed ring at the center of the steamer. ‘503 Patent, Figs. 1-2, 5. Trudeau’s steamer lacks any such inner circumferential ring. (Holcomb Decl., Ex. K at 5.) The Court is aware that, pursuant to Egyptian Goddess and Gorham, isolated differences are less important than “general appearance and effect.” Egyptian Goddess, Inc., 541 F.3d at 670 (quoting Gorham, 81 US at 531). The two visual distinctions the Court observes, however, are not simply isolated differences. The ‘503 design is visually more complex than the Trudeau steamer and an ordinary observer would not confuse the two."
chef%27n_order_denying_PI.pdf
Labels: Chef'n, Egyptian Goddess v Swisa, Judge Pechman, seattle patent litigation, Trudeau
5 Comments:
At December 18, 2008 at 7:05 AM , Anonymous said...
certainly looks as if the Trudeau company got its inspiriation from the Chef's versoin....
At December 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM , Anonymous said...
lame
At December 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM , Anonymous said...
HA! - "make it the same but just throw some wings on it..."
At January 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM , Anonymous said...
What I don't understand is the lack of consistency in application and a lack of what I call "common sense."
If all that is required to avoid patent law issues is to add a few rings and adjust angles, I am afraid that patents to protect any solid device is close to moot as it gets.
With the "logic" or "reasoning" shown in this decision, I can't imagine how any consistency will be had when the courts uphold Apple's "multi-touch" patent...
I'll have to go read Apple's patent application. Perhaps my defense will be that I hold my device/finger at a slightly different angle...
At January 27, 2009 at 1:27 PM , Mark P. Walters said...
Answers to your questions lie in understanding the differences between design patent protection and utility patent protection. This is a design patent case. Design patents protect how something looks, not how it is used.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home