Consequently, the preferable course for a district court ordinarily will be not to attempt to “construe” a design patent by providing a detailed verbal description of the claimed design. Defendant rejoins that a verbal construction of claims explicitly excluding functional elements, as it has proposed, is more appropriate. It observes that the Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess stated that it may be helpful for the court to point out various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the prior art. 543 F.3d at 680. It then cites Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, a case in which the Federal Circuit, reviewing the verbal construction of a design patent, approvingly concluded that the lower court had followed the Egyptian Goddess standard “to a tee”. Defendant submits that Lanard controls the present case, or at least provides more authoritative guidance than DePaoli and Reddy. The element-by-element approach to claim construction proposed by defendant, while perhaps not specifically proscribed, invites the kind of myopic, restrictive approach to the infringement analysis which the Federal Circuit has found to be “untethered from the ordinary observer inquiry” and therefore error.
E-bikes are here to stay, without a question, and as a result, a limitless selection of devices that claim to be the greatest of their kind have emerged. One company, Hyper Bike Co., aims to increase market access to e-biking by providing reasonably priced and decently equipped electric bikes. We previously talked about its E-Ride eMTB, which retails for just $1,500 USD.
Ethicon, 796 F.3d at 1335 (citing Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed Cir. 2006) ). See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680 (admonishing district courts to “recognize the risk” of a verbal description that may place undue emphasis on certain features in lieu of the design as a whole”). Founded in 1990 by Goldsmid, Hyper initially began producing high end race frames. Through the years, the brand boasted names such as BMX race pro Eric Carter, and eventually expanded to include a mountain bike and freestyle team. Today, riders for Hyper include Mike Spinner, Mike Fede (freestyle) and Donny Robinson (race).
Hyper has also continued its commitment to the sport by sponsoring riders, teams, as well as being the series title sponsor for several major events. Plaintiff’s approach hews more closely to precedent, especially that of this district. As acknowledged by Judges Young and Woodlock, however, in Reddy and DePaoli, it would be well within the Court’s discretion to provide some verbal construction at a reduced level of detail than that proposed by defendant. At our webstore, we offer frames, known for their quality and durability. Founded in 1990, Hyper Bicycles has been dedicated to producing high-performance bikes that meet the needs of riders of all levels and styles. The question in this case, therefore, is primarily the “level of detail” to be used in describing the claimed design, i.e. whether the Court should advert to the illustrations in the design patent or undertake an element-by-element description thereof.
It also features a flush-mounted front battery and a charger, and it charges in approximately 4 hours and runs for about 20 miles. This bike has 6 different speeds and an LED display which makes it easy to read and change speeds. The parties disagree as to whether the Court should provide a verbal construction of the claimed design at all, or should instead advert to the pictorial representation hyper bicycles thereof as shown in figures one through seven of each patent. Defendant argues for a verbal construction but plaintiff contends that illustrations will suffice. The ‘842 and ’642 patents are both design patents which pertain to bicycles and, in particular, the ornamental design of two bicycles. The patents claim the design shown in their respective figures one through seven.