Design Patents and Prosecution History Estoppel: Insights from Advantek

Prosecution History Estoppel in Design Patents


Case Background

  • Patent involved: U.S. Design Patent No. D715,006 (D’006 patent)
  • During prosecution, USPTO required election between two embodiments:
    1. Portable animal kennel without a cover (elected)
    2. Portable animal kennel with a cover (not elected)

District Court Decision

  • Advantek sued Walk-Long in the Central District of California.
  • District court ruling:
    • Prosecution history estoppel barred infringement, because Walk-Long’s kennel had a cover.
    • Advantek’s arguments rejected:
      • That Walk-Long’s kennel fell within the “skeletal structure design”
      • That the election broadened, rather than narrowed, claim scope
  • Relied on Pacific Coast Marine Windshields v. Malibu Boats (2014), which outlined three factors for estoppel in design patents:
    1. Whether there was a surrender
    2. Whether surrender was for patentability reasons
    3. Whether accused design falls within the surrendered scope

Federal Circuit Decision

  • The Federal Circuit reversed the district court.
  • Held that even if a surrender occurred, Walk-Long’s product was outside the scope of any possible surrender.
  • Competitors infringe the D’006 patent if they use the patented structural design, regardless of additional features like a cover.

Key Takeaways

  • Highlights post-issuance consequences of elections during design patent prosecution.
  • Serves as a reminder to consider filing divisional applications to cover unelected embodiments.
  • Confirms that additional features on a product do not necessarily avoid infringement if the core patented design is used.

Leave a Comment