Dans la décision Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d 665, 670 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en banc),la Federal Circuit a éliminé le test de “Points-of Novelty” pour l’analyse de la contrefaçon d’un Design Patent. Selon ce test, le point de nouveauté d’un Patent Design est comparé à l’art antérieur le plus proche pour déterminer si ces mêmes éléments de design se retrouve dans l’art antérieur.
Cette fois, dans International Seaway Trading Corp v. Walgreens Corp (Fed. Cir. 2009) et par le principe de symétrie, le test a été éliminé pour vérifier l’anticipation. S’exprimant pour la dissidence, Judge Clevenger convena de élimination du “points-of-novelty test”, mais exprima son désaccord avec l’opinion de la majorité concernant l’application du test de l’ “ordinary observer” qui implique “dissection of a design as a whole into its component pieces.”
As recognized by the majority, the ordinary observer test requires assessment of the designs as a whole. . . . I agree that the differences in the inner sole designs are to be assessed as part of the anticipation inquiry. But the differences in the inner sole designs must be appreciated in conjunction with all of the design differences. This is so especially with regard to the differing number and arrangement of the circular openings on the upper of the clogs. . . . The effect of the summation of all the design differences is what counts, not the comparison of differences one by one, isolated from each other. Such an approach invites the problems we sought to eliminate by rejecting the “point of novelty” test. . . . Partial judgments of anticipation on segments of a design prohibit assessment of designs as a whole, in violation of long-standing law, starting with Gorham.