'Design Impact' and 'Association' Surveys Deemed Admissible in Design Patent Infringement Case

November 27, 2024

Reading Time : 1 min

A district court recently refused to exclude testimony regarding consumer surveys conducted by a design patent expert, holding instead that the consumer surveys may be probative of how an ordinary observer would view the designs at issue, and thus could assist the factfinder in determining design patent infringement under the ordinary observer test.

The designs at issue involved the appearance of a smartwatch. As part of its infringement case, the patent owner’s expert conducted two types of consumer surveys—a design impact survey and an association survey. The design impact survey was intended to assess whether the claimed smartwatch design impacted purchase decisions and asked participants to rank which features would have an effect on the likelihood they would purchase the watch. The association survey was intended to assess whether consumers associated the accused design with the claimed design.

The defendant moved to exclude the surveys, arguing that they did not apply the ordinary observer test for design patent infringement and therefore did not assist the factfinder in determining whether the accused watch was substantially the same as the claimed design. The court disagreed and held that the expert’s surveys were not intended to answer the ultimate question of infringement, but instead could be probative of how an ordinary observer would view the designs. As such, the surveys were admissible, and the defendant’s challenges to the surveys could be addressed through cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence.

Practice Tip: A party advancing or defending against claims of design patent infringement should consider introducing consumer surveys as evidence of how an ordinary observer would view a design. Such surveys may be admissible, not as evidence of whether the design patent is infringed, but for their probative value on how an ordinary observer views a given design.

Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation et al, No. 22-1377, D.I. 695 (D. Del. Oct. 10, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.