Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1592

1
2 JS-6
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
PO-HSUN LIN, CASE NO. 8:16-cv-628-JLS-DFMx
10
11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
12 MOTION FOR SUMMARY
vs. JUDGMENT (Doc. 37)
13
14 BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
15 California Corporation; and DOES 110,
inclusive,
16
17 Defendant.

18
19
20
21 I. INTRODUCTION
22 Before the Court is Defendant Belkin International, Inc.s Motion for Summary
23 Judgment against Plaintiff Po-Hsun Lin. (Mot., Doc. 37.) Lin filed an Opposition, and
24 Belkin replied. (Opp., Doc. 42; Reply, Doc. 44.) Having taken the matter under
25 submission and considered the parties briefs and oral arguments, the Court GRANTS
26 Belkins Motion.
27
28
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:1593

1 II. BACKGROUND
2 This case is about a single claim of design patent infringement brought by Lin
3 against Belkin. Lin is the owner of United States Design Patent D739,824 S (the 824
4 Patent). (SUF I.A 1, Doc. 38; Compl. 2, Doc. 1.) The 824 Patent depicts a cable
5 with a USB connector on one end, a microUSB connector on the other end, and an Apple
6 Lightning connector permanently tethered to the microUSB connector as shown below (the
7 Claimed Design):
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 (SUF I.A 2.)
18 Lin also owns two patents that were filed before the 824 Patent. The first is United
19 States Patent 8,550,856 B2 (the 856 Patent), filed on December 6, 2011. (Lin Decl.,
20 Ex. 104, Doc. 43-2.) The 856 Patent depicts a product consisting of a cable with a USB
21 connector on one end and a microUSB connector on the other, with an Apple 30-pin
22 connector attached to the microUSB connector by two tethers. (Id.) The second is a
23 Chinese patent depicting yet another 2-in-1 plug (the 456 Patent), filed on October 11,
24 2013. (SUF I.A 67.) The 456 Patent also depicts a cable with a USB connector on
25 one end and a microUSB connector on the other, but with an Apple 8-pin connector
26 attached to the microUSB connector by just one tether. (Snedeker Decl., Ex. 23, Doc. 37-
27
28
2
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:1594

1 25.) Lin did not claim foreign priority to the 456 Patent in the 824 Patent application.
2 (SUF I.A 910.)
3 Belkin produces and sells a product that consists of a cable with a USB connector
4 on one end, a microUSB connector on the other end, and an Apple Lightning connector
5 tethered to the microUSB connector:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 (Snedeker Decl., Ex. 22, Doc. 37-24.) In addition to this product, Belkin has previously
16 sold other products consisting of USB cables with tethered connectors:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 May 2012 April 2012 March 2014
26 (Suckle Decl. 7, 16, Doc. 37-60; Hirsch Decl. 6, Doc. 37-59.) In May 2012, Belkin
27 started shipping to customers a USB-to-microUSB cable with a tethered 30-pin connector.
28
3
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:1595

1 (Suckle Decl. 7.) In April 2012, Belkin began selling a tablet-to-HDTV cable with a
2 tethered connector. (Hirsch Decl. 6.) And by March 2014, Belkin was selling a USB-to-
3 microUSB cable with a tethered Lightning connector of a different design. (Suckle Decl.
4 16.)
5 In September 2012, Apple released its Lightning connector. (SUF I.A 14.)
6 After its release, Apple allowed third parties to develop and manufacture accessories that
7 included the Lightning connector. (Id. 15.) The design of the Lightning connector, as
8 well as the design of the cable and the USB and microUSB connectors, are primarily
9 dictated by standards issued by Apple or USB-IF. (Id. 30.) In December 2013, a third
10 party, Skiva Technologies, Inc. began selling its first version of a cable incorporating the
11 Lightning connector (Skiva Cable No. 1). (SUF I.A 18.) In January 2014, Lin made
12 a shipment of products embodying the Claimed Design to Just Wireless for sale in Target
13 stores in the United States. (Lin Decl. 7, Doc. 42-2; Lin Decl., Ex. 110, Doc. 43-6.) In
14 April 2014, Lin attended the Hong Kong Electronics Fair where he displayed products
15 embodying the Claimed Design. (Lin Decl. 11.) Lin met a representative from Skiva at
16 the trade show but did not strike any deal with the representative. (Id. 12.) In May 2014,
17 Skiva began development of a second version of its cable (Skiva Cable No. 2). (SUF
18 I.A 20.) Skiva Cable No. 2 consists of a cable with a USB connector on one end, a
19 microUSB connector on the other, and a Lightning connector attached to the microUSB
20 connector by a single tether. (Id. 21, 23.) Amazon.com began selling Skiva Cable No.
21 2 before October 2014. (Id. 21.) Other companies also began manufacturing and selling
22 cables with similar designs before October 2014, including the Dodocool cable, the PQI
23 Cable No. 3, the Cellet cable, and the Amzer cable. (See id. 25; Rake Decl. 4245,
24 Doc. 37-47.)
25 Lin filed the 824 Patent on October 24, 2014. (Id. 4.) On April 5, 2016, Lin filed
26 a Complaint alleging a single claim of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, et seq.
27 against Belkin claiming that Belkins product infringes the 824 Patent. (Compl.)
28
4
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:1596

1 Belkin now moves for summary judgment on Lins claim. (Mot.)

2
3 III. LEGAL STANDARD
4 In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the evidence in
5 the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in that
6 partys favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Summary
7 judgment is proper if the [moving party] shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
8 material fact and the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
9 Civ. P. 56. A factual dispute is genuine when there is sufficient evidence such that a
10 reasonable trier of fact could resolve the issue in the non-movants favor, and a fact is
11 material when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.
12 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. However, credibility determinations, the weighing of
13 evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not
14 those of a judge. Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 828 (9th Cir. 2013)
15 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (internal
16 quotation marks omitted)). The role of the Court is not to resolve disputes of fact but to
17 assess whether there are any factual disputes to be tried.
18 The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine
19 dispute of fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving
20 party carries its initial burden, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or
21 denials of the adverse partys pleading, but must provide affidavits or other sources of
22 evidence that set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
23 Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
24
25 IV. DISCUSSION
26 Belkin raises several arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the Claimed
27 Design is invalid because it is either (a) functional, and/or (b) anticipated by prior art; (2)
28
5
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:1597

1 Belkins product does not infringe the Claimed Design; and, alternatively, (3) the Claimed
2 Design is invalid because it is obvious. (Mem. at 724, Doc. 37-1.) While the Court
3 ultimately concludes that Belkins product does not infringe the Claimed Design, because
4 of the interrelatedness of the various arguments, the Court first addresses the issues of
5 invalidity based on functionality and anticipation.
6 A. Invalidity
7 A patent enjoys a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. 282, and this
8 presumption can be overcome only through facts supported by clear and convincing
9 evidence. SRAM Corp. v. AD-II Engineering, Inc., 465 F.3d 1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
10 Thus, a moving party seeking to invalidate a patent at summary judgment must submit
11 such clear and convincing evidence of facts underlying invalidity that no reasonable jury
12 could find otherwise. Id.
13 1. Functionality
14 A design patent is directed to the appearance of an article of manufacture. L.A.
15 Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993). [T]he design
16 of a useful article is deemed to be functional when the appearance of the claimed design is
17 dictated by the use or purpose of the article. Id. (citations omitted). If the particular
18 design is essential to the use of the article, it can not be the subject of a design patent. Id.
19 In determining whether a claimed design is primarily functional, [t]he function of
20 the article itself must not be confused with functionality of the design of the article.
21 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
22 (quoting Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). A claimed
23 design is not invalid simply because the primary features of the design performs
24 functions. Id. at 1329. The claimed design must be viewed in its entirety; it is the overall
25 appearance of the article that is the basis of the relevant inquiry, not the functionality of
26 isolated elements of the claimed design. Id. Although there is no particular test for
27 determining whether a claimed design is functional, an importantif not dispositive
28
6
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:1598

1 factor is the availability of alternative designs. Id. at 132930. When there are several
2 ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more
3 likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose. L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123 (citing Avia
4 Group Intl, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1988),
5 abrogated on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed.
6 Cir. 2008)). Other factors considered by courts to determine functionality include (1)
7 whether the protected design represents the best design; (2) whether alternative designs
8 would adversely affect the utility of the specified article; (3) whether there are any
9 concomitant utility patents; (4) whether the advertising touts particular features of the
10 design as having specific utility; and (5) whether there are any elements in the design or
11 an overall appearance clearly not dictated by function. PHG Techs, LLC v. St. John Cos.,
12 Inc., 469 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Berry Sterling Corp v. Pescor Plastics,
13 Inc., 122 F.3d 1452, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
14 Belkin argues that every aspect of the Claimed Design is functional or driven by
15 functional considerations. (Mem. at 8.) Belkin contends that the design of the cable, its
16 connectors, and the Lightning connector are primarily dictated by standards issued by
17 Apple or USB-IF, all of which pre-date the filing of the 824 Patent application. (Id.)
18 Moreover, these components are functional only when combined togethereach part by
19 itself is fairly useless. (Id.) However, Belkin concedes that whether the Claimed Design is
20 functional requires considering the designs overall appearance. (Id. at 9.) To that end, it
21 focuses the rest of its functionality arguments on how the microUSB and Lightning plugs
22 are connected together. With an eye to the factors set forth in PHG, Belkin contends that
23 the tether design is the best for its intended purpose, that alternative tether designs may
24 adversely affect the Claimed Designs utility, and that Lins Chinese utility patent
25 confirms functionality. (Id. at 911.)
26 Lin counters that the possibility and existence of alternative designs is sufficient to
27 raise a genuine issue as to functionality. (Opp. at 8.) Lin points to images of Belkins
28
7
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:1599

1 other loosely connected dual connectors as evidence of the several ways to connect two
2 connectors together. (Id.) Lin also argues that there are limitless ways to connect two
3 connectors together, e.g., by string, by wire, by type, by chain, by key chain, by
4 connecting various plugs at the base, etc. (Id. at 9.) As to his Chinese patent, Lin
5 disputes both Belkins characterization of it as a utility patent and Belkins assertion that
6 the Chinese patent covers the Claimed Design. (Id. at 10.)
7 Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court concludes that there is a genuine issue as to
8 whether the Claimed Design is functional. The Claimed Design indeed contains a number
9 of functional elements. The design of the transmission cable and the USB, microUSB, and
10 Lightning connectors are primarily dictated by standards issued by Apple or USB-IF.
11 (SUF I.A 30.) However, the existence of functional elements in a design patent does
12 not render the patent as a whole invalid. Rather, the patent protects only the non-
13 functional aspects of the design. Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d
14 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing KeyStone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc.,
15 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Despite the presence of several functional
16 elements in the Claimed Design, Belkins supporting declarations show that there are
17 potential alternative designs for the type of product at issue here. On more than one
18 occasion, Belkin previously designed and sold products consisting of USB cables with
19 tethered connectors. (See Hirsch Decl. 6; Suckle Decl. 7, 16.)
20 In addition, as Lin suggested, there appears to be other feasible designs that achieve
21 the same functionalityfor example, by connecting the connectors by key chain or by
22 having each connector at the end of a separate cable that come together at the USB
23 connector. In other words, it does not appear that the manner in which the microUSB and
24 Lightning connectors are connected in the Claimed Design is essential to the use of the
25 article.
26 The existence of alternative designs also cuts against Belkins argument that the
27 Claimed Design is the best design or that alternative designs would adversely affect
28
8
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:1600

1 utility. Although functional considerations may limit the viability of alternative designs,
2 plainly this does not reduce the number of viable designs to only one. Moreover, the
3 existence of alternative designs indicate that there are other, just as effective ways to
4 permanently tether a Lightning connector to a microUSB connector in a proximate and
5 easily accessible manner. As for Lins Chinese patent, the Court finds it to be of relatively
6 minimal probative value in light of the parties dispute over its characterization and scope.
7 Accordingly, the Court concludes that a genuine issue of fact remains such that it
8 cannot declare the 824 Patent invalid for functionality.
9 2. Anticipation by Prior Art
10 Belkin argues in the alternative that the Claimed Design is invalid because it was
11 anticipated by prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). (Mem. at 11.) Section 102(a) provides
12 that a person is entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was, among other things,
13 in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date
14 of the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, a disclosure made within a
15 year before the effective filing date of a claimed invention is not prior art if either (1) the
16 disclosure was made by the inventor or . . . by another who obtained the subject matter
17 disclosed . . . from the inventor; or (2) the subject matter disclosed had, before such
18 disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor . . . or another who obtained the subject
19 matter . . . from the inventor. 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1). The term disclosure encompasses
20 the documents and activities enumerated in Section 102(a) (i.e., being patented, described
21 in a printed publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public, etc.).
22 MPEP 2152.04.
23 Belkin asserts that cables sold by Skiva Technologies Inc. beginning in December
24 2013 on Amazon.com (Skiva Cable No. 1) constitute prior art that invalidate the
25 Claimed Design. (Mem. at 1112.) Belkin claims that Skiva Cable No. 1 had a USB
26 connector on one end and a microUSB connector on the other, and a Lightning connector
27 permanently attached to the microUSB connector by a flexible tether. (Mem. at 12.) Soon
28
9
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:1601

1 after the initial release of Skiva Cable No. 1, Skiva revised the design, and this revised
2 cable (Skiva Cable No. 2) was offered for sale on Amazon.com before October 2014.
3 (Id. at 1213.)
4 Lin argues that neither version of the Skiva cable qualifies as prior art. (Opp. at
5 15.) Because sales of both types of Skiva cables began within one year of the 824
6 Patents filing date, the exceptions in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) potentially apply. With
7 respect to Skiva Cable No. 1, Lin contends that its design was merely a copy of an earlier
8 patent owned by Lin and that there is insufficient evidence of Skiva Cable No. 1s
9 commercial sale or public disclosure. (Id. at 1516.) As for Skiva Cable No. 2, Lin asserts
10 that he publicly disclosed his Claimed Design prior to its debut. (Id. at 1314.)
11 Specifically, Lin claims that he shipped cables embodying the Claimed Design to a
12 customer in early January 2014 and then displayed his products at the Hong Kong
13 Electronics Fair in April 2014. (Id.)
14 The Court finds that there is a genuine issue as to whether either Skiva cable
15 qualifies as prior art. Regarding Skiva Cable No. 1, Belkin fails to produce either a
16 physical sample of the cable or a picture or diagram depicting the entire cable. All that
17 Belkin provides are two diagrams that partially depict the alleged prior art. (See Kumar
18 Decl. 10, Doc. 37-58.) Although the Court notes the similarities between the design
19 depicted in these diagrams and the Claimed Design, the Court does not consider this
20 sufficiently clear and convincing evidence of prior art such that no reasonable jury could
21 conclude otherwise. The diagrams depict only one end of the cable; that consisting of the
22 microUSB and Lightning connectors attached by a tether. Therefore, a jury cannot
23 consider the design of this cable with the Claimed Design as a whole. Not only do these
24 diagrams fail to portray the entire product, they also fail to show how the product looks
25 when the microUSB and Lightning connectors are not plugged into each other. Moreover,
26 it is unclear what the source of these diagrams are. The declaration states only that the
27 diagrams are from SKIVA_000003. (Id.)
28
10
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:1602

1 As for Skiva Cable No. 2, the Court notes that the evidence could lead a reasonable
2 jury to conclude that Lin publicly disclosed his Claimed Design prior to Skivas disclosure
3 of its revised cable, thus disqualifying the revised cable as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
4 102(b)(1)(B). Lin has submitted evidence that he made a shipment of cables embodying
5 the Claimed Design to a customer in January 2014 for the purposes of selling the cables in
6 Target stores, (Lin Decl. 7; Lin Decl., Ex. 110), and that he displayed such cables at a
7 trade show in April 2014, (Lin Decl. 11.) Lin also states that he met a Skiva
8 representative at that trade show although he cannot recall the representatives name. (Id.
9 12.) These events occurred before Skiva began development of Skiva Cable No. 2 in
10 May 2014. (SUF I.A 20.)
11 Belkins expert, Lance Rake, identifies as prior art four other cables with designs
12 similar to the Claimed Design, (Rake Decl. 4245), but the evidence does not clearly
13 and convincingly establish that they were offered for sale or otherwise made publicly
14 available before Lins disclosure of his Claimed Design. Rake merely states that he
15 believes they were offered for sale no later than various dates in 2014. (Id.) Only the
16 Dodocool and Amzer cables, which Rake believes were first offered for sale no later than
17 March and April 2014, respectively, overlap with the dates Lin gives for his public
18 disclosure of his Claimed Design. (Id. 42, 45; see also Snedeker Decl., Ex. 14, Doc. 30-
19 15.)
20 Therefore, there is a genuine issue as to whether the Skiva cables, or any others,
21 qualify as prior art in this case. Accordingly, the Court deems it unnecessary to address
22 Belkins arguments that the Skiva cables anticipate the Claimed Design.
23 B. Infringement
24 Belkin next argues that its product differs significantly from the Claimed Design
25 such that an ordinary observer would not mistake its product as Lins. (Mem. at 17.)
26 Design patent infringement is a question of fact, to be proven by a preponderance of the
27 evidence. L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1124 (citing Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975
28
11
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:1603

1 F.2d 815, 819 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). It requires a showing that the accused design is
2 substantially the same as the claimed design. Id. However, [w]here the claimed and
3 accused designs are sufficiently distinct and plainly dissimilar, the patentee fails to
4 meet its burden of proving infringement as a matter of law. Ethicon, 796 F.3d at 1335
5 (quoting Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678). In Ethicon, the Federal Circuit affirmed a
6 district courts grant of summary judgment of non-infringement based on a finding that the
7 claimed design was plainly dissimilar from the design of the accused product. Id. at 1315,
8 133537; see also High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 621 Fed. Appx. 632,
9 641 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming summary judgment of non-infringement on finding that
10 designs were sufficiently distinct and plainly dissimilar).
11 A design patent is infringed [i]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such
12 attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the
13 resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one
14 supposing it to be the other. Id. (quoting Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 670). The
15 ordinary observer test applies even in cases where the patented design incorporates
16 numerous functional elements. Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1295
17 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Although a design patent protects only the non-functional aspects of an
18 ornamental design, Amini, 439 F.3d at 1370 (quoting KeyStone, 997 F.2d at 1450), any
19 differences in those aspects must be evaluated in the context of the claimed design as a
20 whole, and not in the context of separate elements in isolation. Ethicon, 796 F.3d at
21 1335. An element-by-element comparison, untethered [(no pun intended)] from
22 application of the ordinary observer inquiry to the overall design, is procedural error. Id.
23 (citing Amini, 439 F.3d at 1372). Moreover, the infringement inquiry is not limited to
24 those features visible at the time of sale, but includes those features visible at any time
25 during the normal use lifetime of the accused product. Intl Seaway Trading Corp. v.
26 Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Normal use extends from the
27 completion of manufacture or assembly until the ultimate destruction, loss, or
28
12
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:1604

1 disappearance of the article. Id. (citing Contessa Food Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
2 282 F.3d 1370, 137980 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
3 Upon comparing the design of Belkins product with the Claimed Design, the Court
4 finds the designs sufficiently distinct and plainly dissimilar such that no reasonable jury
5 could find the two designs to be substantially the same. Although both designs consist of a
6 cable with a USB connector on one end and a microUSB connector on the other, and a
7 Lightning connector attached to the microUSB connector by a tether, the manner in which
8 the microUSB and Lightning connectors are attached is substantially different and results
9 in a substantially different visual appearance overall. With Belkins product, the tether
10 that connects the microUSB and Lightning connectors forms rings on both ends. One ring
11 encircles the cable that connects the microUSB and USB connectors and can be moved
12 along the length of the cable as the user desires. It can be brought adjacent to the
13 microUSB connector so that the Lightning connector can be brought to use, or it can be
14 moved further down the cable so as not to interfere with the use of the microUSB
15 connector in tight spaces. The other ring is wider and encircles the Lightning connector,
16 which can be removed from the ring completely for use as an ordinary microUSB-to-
17 Lightning adapter. When the Lightning connector is fitted within the tether, the ring
18 creates a visual appearance of a wider base for the Lightning connector. In addition, the
19 rings create a visual impression of the tether as a distinct component of Belkins product
20 there is the USB connector, the cable, the microUSB connector, the tether, and the
21 Lightning connector.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:1605

1 These features are not hidden from the ordinary observer. An ordinary observer,
2 examining the product and making use of it over its normal lifetime, would recognize these
3 design features of Belkins product.
4 On the other hand, the Claimed Design depicts a tether that appears to be directly
5 and permanently molded to the bases of the microUSB and Lightning connectors. Apart
6 from being able to plug the microUSB connector into the Lightning connector, there is no
7 indication that any other part of the design is detachable or movable. This also creates a
8 visual impression distinct from Belkins product. Because the tether is molded directly to
9 the base of the Lightning connector, there is no appearance of a wider base. Moreover, the
10 tether appears to grow out of the bases of the plugs, and does not appear to be a separate
11 component like the tether in Belkins product.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 The visual impression is one of a sleek, minimalist 2-in-1 cable in contrast to the bulkier
22 appearance of Belkins 2-in-1 cable.
23 Although these differences are concentrated on the tether that links the microUSB
24 and Lightning connectors, they are sufficiently distinct that they stand out even when
25 considering the designs as a whole. Given the functional nature of the other design
26 elementsthe cable and the USB, microUSB, and Lightning connectorsan ordinary
27 observer is also likely to be drawn to those aspects of the design that differ between similar
28
14
Case 8:16-cv-00628-JLS-DFM Document 49 Filed 05/12/17 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:1606

1 products. Cf. Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676 (When the differences between the
2 claimed and accused design are viewed in light of the prior art, the attention of the
3 hypothetical ordinary observer will be drawn to those aspects of the claimed design that
4 differ from the prior art.)
5 Accordingly, the Court finds the design of Belkins product to be sufficiently
6 distinct from, and plainly dissimilar to, the Claimed Design such that, as a matter of law,
7 Lin has failed to meet its burden of showing infringement of the 824 Patent. Because the
8 Court finds that there is no infringement, it does not reach Belkins arguments regarding
9 whether the Claimed Design is obvious.1
10
11 V. CONCLUSION
12 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Belkins Motion for Summary
13 Judgment.
14
15
16 DATED: May 12, 2017
17
18
19 _________________________________
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
1
25 The Court notes, however, that if the Claimed Design were so broad as to encompass a
moveable tether design, it would very likely be invalid for obviousness. In that circumstance,
26 Belkins prior loose-tether designed products would qualify as primary and secondary references
by which a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved would find the
27 Claimed Design obvious. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329
28 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
15