'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

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the defendants’ expert reports and related deposition testimony. Although the defendants’ invalidity contentions did not state the specific theories of invalidity upon which the expert opined, the court found that none of the Pennypack factors supported excluding that expert testimony.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2026

The Western District of Texas recently vacated a preliminary injunction after the USPTO issued a non-final rejection in a reexamination proceeding of all claims of the asserted patent directed to magnetic data cables. Although not final, the rejection was based on a substantial question of validity that made vulnerable the counter-plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 30, 2026

A Northern District of Florida court denied a motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ outside counsel based on an alleged violation of a prosecution bar because, although the issue was “not free of doubt,” the court did not find a “clear violation” of the protective order. In reaching its decision, the court explained that disqualification is a “high bar” requiring compelling reasons and that motions to disqualify based on violating a prosecution bar, therefore, should only be granted “if the violation was clear.” Here, the court found it was unclear whether outside counsel prosecuted patents “related to” the asserted patent, in violation of the order, because the scope of “related to” was not clearly defined.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.