US$18.3 Million Wearable Blanket Infringement Award Stands Despite Newly Announced Design Patent Standard

KG
K&L Gates

Contributor

At K&L Gates, we foster an inclusive and collaborative environment across our fully integrated global platform that enables us to diligently combine the knowledge and expertise of our lawyers and policy professionals to create teams that provide exceptional client solutions. With offices spanning across five continents, we represent leading global corporations in every major industry, capital markets participants, and ambitious middle-market and emerging growth companies. Our lawyers also serve public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations, and individuals. We are leaders in legal issues related to industries critical to the economies of both the developed and developing worlds—including technology, manufacturing, financial services, health care, energy, and more.
An Arizona federal judge denied Top Brand LLC's motion for a new trial following an US$18.3 million jury award to Cozy Comfort Co. for infringement of two Cozy Comfort design patents...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

An Arizona federal judge denied Top Brand LLC's motion for a new trial following an US$18.3 million jury award to Cozy Comfort Co. for infringement of two Cozy Comfort design patents and the "Comfy" trademarks used in connection with "The Comfy" hooded wearable blanket, which was featured on the television program "Shark Tank".

Top Brand argued that a new trial was warranted given the Federal Circuit's recent May 21, 2024 LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC decision, set a new test for evaluating the non-obviousness of design patents (see IP Law Watch writeup here). Top Brand argued that Cozy Comfort's design patents are invalid under the new test, and that Top Brand's "Tirrinia" large wearable hoody is therefore not infringing.

U.S. District Judge Steven Logan disagreed, holding that although the LKQ decision "loosened the standard for obviousness", its holding was not "so disruptive as to consider the jury instructions in this case a miscarriage of justice". In fact, Judge Logan wrote, the jury instructions in this case contained the "exact analysis for obviousness which LKQ commands". Judge Logan therefore upheld the jury verdict and denied Top Brand's request for a new trial.

Courts will continue to grapple with the new LKQ design patent obviousness standard, which may result in increased challenges to design patents going forward.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More