The outcome:BDI challenges each of these determinations on appeal.For the reasons set forth below, we reverse summaryjudgment of invalidity, affirm summary judgment ofnon-infringement, affirm the denial of BDI’s motion foradditional discovery, and affirm the denial of BDI’s motionto amend the complaint. The CAFC gave background:Design patents are presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C.§ 282(a). A party seeking to invalidate a patent on thebasis of anticipation must do so by clear and convincingevidence. See Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,295 F.3d 1277, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Design patentanticipation requires a showing that a single prior artreference is “identical in all material respects” to theclaimed invention. Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc.,256 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Hupp v.Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1461 (Fed. Cir.1997)). In other words, the two designs must be substantiallythe same. See Door-Master,…
↧