{"id":2725,"date":"2020-03-16T16:57:48","date_gmt":"2020-03-16T20:57:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2725"},"modified":"2020-03-21T13:32:34","modified_gmt":"2020-03-21T17:32:34","slug":"design-patent-infringement-affirmed-where-defendant-did-not-proffer-jury-instructions-or-introduce-prior-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2725","title":{"rendered":"Design Patent Infringement Affirmed Where Defendant Did Not Proffer Jury Instructions or Introduce Prior Art"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>In Hafco Foundry and Machine Co., Inc. v.  GMS Mine Repair and maintenance, Inc., Inc., [2018-1904] (March 16, 2020), the Federal Circuit  affirmed the judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent No. D681,684 for a \u201cRock Dust Blower, \u201d affirmed the of GMS\u2019 request for a new trial, and remanded for a final judgment on damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"815\" height=\"660\" src=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Hafco.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2726\" srcset=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Hafco.jpg 815w, https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Hafco-300x243.jpg 300w, https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Hafco-768x622.jpg 768w, https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/Hafco-370x300.jpg 370w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 815px) 100vw, 815px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p> On appeal, GMS argued that the jury instructions incompletely and prejudicially abridged the Gorham test,\u201d and failed to instruct that the hypothetical ordinary purchaser is to view the patented and accused designs in the context of the prior art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>GMS complained that the jury instructions defined the ordinary observer as \u201ca person who buys and uses the product at issue.\u201d  However GMS failed to object to this language or any explanation of the purported flaw.  GMS also argued the jury should have been instructed that small differences between the accused and the claimed design will avoid infringement, but GMS did not ask for such an instruction, and in any event the Federal Circuit said that it was not correct, noting that the designs do not have to be identical for design patent infringement to be found. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As to GMS&#8217;s second point, it argued that the jury should have been instructed to \u201cfamiliarize yourself with each of the prior art designs that have been brought to your attention,\u201d citing IPO Model Design Patent Jury Instructions.  However GMS did not introduce any prior art.  The Federal Circuit said that given that there was no prior art introduced at trial, no attempt by GMS to introduce the prior art, and no proposed jury instruction on this issue, the purported exclusion of this instruction cannot be error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement and remanded for a determination of the damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Hafco Foundry and Machine Co., Inc. v. GMS Mine Repair and maintenance, Inc., Inc., [2018-1904] (March 16, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent No. D681,684 for a \u201cRock Dust Blower, \u201d affirmed the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2725\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-designs"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2725","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2725"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2725\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2727,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2725\/revisions\/2727"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}