Extra credit assignment-2

In my first assignment, I went on to describe the difference between designer's views and observer's views.

So in the past, people were confused that International Seaway Trading Corp v. Walgreens Corp completely changed the paradigm of design patents. Seaway sued Walgreens, claiming that the sale of certain clog like shoes infringd Seway's three design patents. Walgreens moved for summary judgement, and District Court granted Walgreen's motion. They found that patent were invalid based on the patents assigned to Crocs, inc., maker of colorful and foam clogs. Without addressing obviousness the District Court held that ordinary observer test was the sole test of design patent invalidity.

Seway appealed again and Federal Circuit confirmed that ordinary observer test is the sole test for assessing both infringement and anticipation. "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s holding that the ordinary observer test is the sole test of invalidity of a design patent.(Lawupdates.com)"

Did the courts fail or succeed? I know that I just went briefly into the topic and did not go in depth about whole case summary. In this case, the Federal Circuit Court eliminated the point of novelty test for analysis of anticipation and obviousness claims. They also affirmed that ordinary observer test as the sole test for design patent validity.