Shape Blog

The American Intellectual Property Association had filed its amicus brief with the CAFC in support of Plaintiff-Appellant Lawman Armor's Petition for Rehearing in Lawman v. Winner. Download brief here. The Association urges the Court to clarify its opinion either by eliminating any reference to the ninth point of novely (which was not raised by Appellant Lawman below), or to state that the novel appearance of a combination of old elements can constitute a point of novelty.

AIPLA contends that the CAFC's decision "represents a significant shift in well-settled design patent jurisprudence" because it is "at odds with three prior opinions of this Court, which held that a design patent's point of novelty resided in the visual appearance of a novel combination of old elements."

It asserts that "if the visual appearance of a combination of old elements could not constitute a design patent's point of novelty, most design patents will be effectively rendered unenforceable (or more accurately, 'uninfringeable') -- because a design patentee will almost never be able to establish a recognized point of novelty."

AIPLA suggests that the Court "revise the language of its Lawman opinion to clarify that, indeed, the novel visual appearance of a combination of old elements can constitute a design patent's point of novelty." It points out the such a revision would not require reversal of the Court's ultimate holding, because "Appellant failed to assert the visual appearance of a novel combination of old elements as a point of novelty at the district court, and thus the Court need not even address that issue in any revised opinion."