'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

July 22, 2026

The Court of Federal Claims recently denied the United States’ motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit related to production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the plaintiff filed its claim there before it filed a parallel suit in a district court and because it adequately pleaded the government’s involvement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 13, 2026

In a precedential and sua sponte Director Review decision, USPTO Director Squires recently vacated three related institution decisions nearly six months after institution where a district court later found the challenged claims invalid. Because the fourteen-day deadline to request Director Review of the institution decisions had passed, the Director used this opportunity to formally extend the deadline in two ways. First, he extended the fourteen-day deadline under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(c)(1) to thirty days, which “puts requests for Director Review of decisions to institute trial on equal footing to requests for Director Review of final decisions or decisions not to institute trial.” Second, he outlined certain “exceptional circumstances” that warrant a further extension of the deadline to account for changes in the case that “surface after the deadline.” In the case at hand, the Director found the district court’s invalidity finding to be such an “exceptional circumstance” and ultimately initiated review and vacated the institution decisions on that basis.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

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.