We recently decided to accept John Oliver’s challenge to make oral arguments more fun by remixing them with his canine judiciary footage. The resulting video uses audio clips from the oral argument in MRC Innovations v. Hunter Manufacturing (the dog jersey design case). We hope you’ll enjoy - or forgive us for - our attempt at humor.
Once the court has identified a Rosen reference, it may then determine whether an “ordinary designer” would have combined that reference with others to arrive at a design having the same overall visual impression as the patented design. If the answer is yes, the design patent is held invalid. If the answer is no, the obviousness challenge fails. Again, you can use the images to determine how you would have decided the obviousness question.
These are the core issues being debated in the oral argument depicted in the dog video. If you’d like to listen to the real oral argument in its entirety, you can access it from the sample database’s table
Ultimately, how do you think the court ruled?