Crocs Inc v. Int'l Trade
| Decision Date | 20 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008-1596.,2008-1596. |
| Citation | 598 F.3d 1294 |
| Parties | CROCS, INC., Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd., Intervenor, and Holey Soles Holdings, Ltd., and Effervescent, Inc., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James C. Otteson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, of Palo Alto, California argued for appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas T. Carmack, of Palo Alto, California, and Michael A. Berta, Ariana M. Chung-Han, and Tung-On Kong of San Francisco, California. Of counsel was Michael A. Ladra.
Clint A. Gerdine, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were James M. Lyons, General Counsel, and Andrea C. Casson, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation.
Glenn D. Bellamy, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald PLLC, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for intervenor Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd. With him on the brief was Carrie A. Shufflebarger.
Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for interveners Holey Soles Holdings, Ltd., et al. With him on the brief were Don 0. Burley and Jason W. Melvin. Of counsel were Elizabeth A. Niemeyer and Smith R.
Brittingham, IV. Of counsel on the brief were Michael G. Martin, William A. Rudy, and Stephen J. Horace, Lathrop & Gage LLP, of Denver, Colorado.
Before LOURIE, RADER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
The United States International Trade Commission ("ITC" or "Commission") found no violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Specifically the Commission determined that U.S. Patent No. 6, 993, 858 (the "'858 patent") would have been obvious at the time of invention and that none of the interveners infringed U.S. Patent No D517, 789 (the "'789 patent"). The Commission also determined that Crocs, Inc. ("Crocs") had not satisfied the technical prong of the industry requirement under section 1337 for the '789 patent. Because the Commission erred in finding that the prior art taught all of the claimed elements of the '858 patent and incorrectly weighed the secondary considerations, this court reverses the Commission's finding that the '858 patent would have been obvious. Because the Commission also erred in claim construction for the '789 patent, in applying the ordinary observer test for infringement, and in applying the technical prong of the section 1337 domestic industry requirement, this court reverses the Commission's determination on the '789 patent.
I.
Crocs is the assignee of the '858 and '789 patents. Crocs's '858 patent, entitled "Breathable Footwear Pieces, " issued on February 7, 2006, based on a filing in 2003. The asserted claims of the '858 patent, independent claims 1 and 2, cover foam footwear having a foam base section—an upper portion ("upper") and a sole—and a foam strap. A pair of connectors ties the foam strap to the base section. This con-nection creates frictional forces that keep the strap in an ideal position at the rear of the base section.
Claim 1 of the '858 patent reads as follows (emphasis added):
A footwear piece comprising:
[a] a base section including an upper and a sole formed as a single part manufactured from a moldable foam material; and
[b] a strap section formed of a moldable material that is attached at opposite ends thereof to the upper of the base section with plastic connectors such that the moldable foam material of the strap section is in direct contact with the moldable material of the base section and pivots relative to the base section at the connectors;
[c] wherein the upper includes an open rear region defined by an upper opening perimeter, and wherein frictional forces developed by the contact between the strap section and the base section at the plastic connectors are sufficient to maintain the strap section in place in an intermediary position after pivoting, whereby the strap section lends support to the Achilles portion of the human foot inserted in the open rear region; and
[d] wherein the upper includes a substantially horizontal portion and a substantially vertical portion forming a toe region that generally follows the contour of a human foot, wherein the toe region tapers from an inner area of the base section where the larger toes exist to an outer area of the base section where the smaller toes exist; and
[e] wherein the sole includes a bottom surface having front and rear tread patterns longitudinally connected by a flat section.
Claim 2 of the '858 patent reads as follows (emphasis added):
A footwear piece comprising:
[a] a base section including an upper and a sole formed as a single part manufactured from a moldable foam material; and
[b] a strap section formed, of a molded foam material attached at opposite ends thereof to the base section such that the strap section is in direct contact with the base section and pivots relative to the base section; and
[c] wherein the upper includes an open rear region defined by an upper opening perimeter; and wherein the sole includes a rear perimeter; and wherein the strap section pivots between a first contact point on the upper opening perimeter and a second contact point on the rear perimeter, and wherein frictional forces developed by the contact between the strap section and the base section at the points of attachment are sufficient to maintain the strap section in place in an intermediary position after pivoting whereby the strap sectio7i lends support to the Achilles portion of a human foot inserted in the open rear region; and
[d] wherein the upper includes a substantially horizontal portion and a substantially vertical portion forming a toe region that generally follows the contour of a human foot, wherein the toe region tapers from the inner area of the base section where the larger toes exist to the outer area of the base section where the smaller toes exist; and
[e] wherein a decorative pattern of raised bumps is molded or otherwise created in the upper near to and extending the length of the upper opening perimeter; and
[f] wherein a plurality of ventilators are formed in both the substantially vertical portion and the substantially horizontal portion, and wherein the ventila-tors extend up a majority of the height of the vertical portion;
[g] wherein the vertical portion of the upper includes an upper strip, wherein the ventilators are formed in the upper strip, and wherein the upper strip extends from the toe region to the points of attachment for the strap section, and wherein the sole includes a lower strip that parallels the upper strip and is separated by a line that extends from the toe region to a heel of the footwear piece, and wherein the lower strip vertically rises in a direction toward the heel; and
[h] wherein the sole includes a bottom surface having front and rear tread patterns longitudinally connected by a flat section without tread patterns bounded by raised side portions; and
[i] wherein the sole further includes a top surface having a support base including a raised pattern where a foot contacts the support base.
The '789 patent, entitled "Footwear, " issued on March 28, 2006, based on a filing in 2004. The '789 patent has one claim and seven figures. It claims an ornamental footwear design as depicted in the figures:
II.
Crocs of Niwot, Colorado filed a complaint and an amended complaint on March 31, 2006 and April 27, 2006, respectively. Crocs's amended complaint alleged unfair competition under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by respondents due to importation into the United States of foam footwear. Crocs asserted that the imported footwear infringes claims 1 and 2 of the '858 patent, the design in the '789 patent, and Crocs's trade dress. Crocs later withdrew its trade dress complaint. The complaint named eleven respondents: (1) Collective Licensing International, LLC ("Collective") of Englewood, Colorado; (2) Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. ("Double Diamond") of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (3) Effervescent Inc. ("Effervescent") of Fitchburg, Massachusetts; (4) Gen-X Sports, Inc. ("Gen-X") of Toronto, Ontario; (5) Holey Soles Holding Ltd. ("Holey Soles") of Vancouver, British Columbia; (6) Australia Unlimited, Inc. of Seattle, Washington; (7) Cheng's Enterprises Inc. of Carlstadt, New Jersey; (8) D. Myer & Sons, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland; (9) Inter-Pacific Trading Corp. of Los Angeles, California; (10) Pali Hawaii of Honolulu, Hawaii; and (11) Shaka Shoes of KailuaKona, Hawaii. Crocs added a twelfth respondent, Old Dominion Footwear, Inc. of Madison Heights, Virginia, on October 10, 2006. After some settlements and some determinations of non-infringement, five respondents remained in the investigation:
(1) Collective; (2) Double Diamond; (3) Effervescent; (4) Gen-X; and (5) Holey Soles. They make accused products in Asia and import them into the United States.
On September 29, 2006, Crocs filed a motion for summary determination of infringement of the '789 patent. Respondents answered with motions for summary determination of non-infringement of the 789 patent. On November 7, 2006, the presiding administrative law judge granted respondents' motions for summary determination of non-infringement of the '789 patent. On review, the Commission issued an Order of Vacatur and Remand of Initial Determination on February 15, 2007. On remand, the administrative judge held an evidentiary hearing from September 7 through 14, 2007.
On April 11, 2008, the administrative judge concluded that the respondents did not violate section 1337. Specifically, the administrative judge found that the '789 patent was not infringed and that Crocs's products, its Beach, Cayman, and Kids Cayman shoes, did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. In reaching this latter decision, the administrative judge found that Crocs's own products did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golden Eye Media USA, Inc. v. Trolley Bags UK Ltd.
...1396, 1399-1400 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (comparing the plaintiff's design figures to the defendant's product); Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 598 F.3d 1294, 1302-03 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (same); Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc. , 597 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that "design patents a......
-
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:16–CV–125–HEH
...and the evidence of secondary considerations in order for that evidence to be given substantial weight. See Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 598 F.3d 1294, 1310–11 (Fed Cir. 2010) ; Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. , 566 F.3d 989, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2009).ZUP offers three consid......
-
Battle Sports Sci., LLC v. Shock Doctor, Inc.
...art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design." Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 598 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010).Shock Doctor complains the Amended Complaint provides "no factual allegations that identify any non-functional......
-
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co.
...of obviousness, sometimes even the most important evidence. See , e.g. , Plantronics , 724 F.3d at 1355 ; Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 598 F.3d 1294, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And it cites authorities that say, consistent with KSR and Graham , that objective indicia must be considered a......
-
Intellectual Property Tools for Protecting Fashion Goods
...35 U.S.C. § 173. [14] Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 681 (Fed. Cir. 2008). [15] Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int’l Ltd., 998 F.2d 985, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). [16] See, e.g., Decorati......
-
Intellectual Property Tools For Protecting Fashion Goods
...13 35 U.S.C. ' 173. 14 Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 681 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 15 Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 998 F.2d 985, 991 (Fed. Cir. 16 See, e.g., Decorations for Gen......
-
ITC Grants Exclusion Order For Crocs On Infringing Shoes
...See supra note 1. 6 Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337- TA-567 (April 11, 2008) (Preliminary). 7 Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 8 See supra note 1. 9 See id. 10 See Crocs, 598 F.3d at 1306. 11 See supra note 1. 12 See id. 13 See supra note 1, at 1. 1......
-
Chapter §9.06 Graham Factor (4): Secondary Considerations
...that "[c]opying may indeed be another form of flattering praise for inventive features," Crocs [Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)], 598 F.3d at 1311, and thus evidence of copying tends to show nonobviousness. See also Windsurfing Int'l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782......
-
Antitrust Issues Involving Intellectual Property
...to certain threshold requirements relating to the existence of a domestic industry practicing the patent. See also Crocs, Inc. v ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1306 (Fed Cir. 2010) (“One requirement of a patent-based section 1337 action is that a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by......
-
Table of Cases
...U.S. 122 (1983), 460, 461 Crocs, Inc. v. Australia Unlimited, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82942 (D. Colo. 2008), 342 Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed Cir. 2010), 1172 1760 ANTITRUST LAW DEVELOPMENTS (NINTH) Crosby v. Hospital Auth., 873 F. Supp. 1568 (M.D. Ga. 1995), 1605 Crosby v. Ho......
-
Secondary considerations: a structured framework for patent analysis.
...[in KSR] seems to point courts toward more consideration of the facts of each case."). (57) See Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (invoking the language of Learned Hand to emphasize the importance of secondary considerations); Trimed, Inc. v. Stryker Co......