## Facts

- Crocs, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 6,993,858 (utility) covering foam footwear with a molded foam base and a foam strap attached by connectors that create frictional forces holding the strap in place.
- Crocs also owned U.S. Patent No. D517,789 (design) claiming the ornamental design of a clog-style foam shoe as shown in the patent drawings.
- Crocs filed a complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under 19 U.S.C. § 1337, alleging that imported foam footwear infringed both patents.
- The respondents were importers of foam shoes made abroad and sold in the United States.
- An Administrative Law Judge found no § 1337 violation, concluding the ’858 utility patent was obvious, the accused products did not infringe the ’789 design patent, and Crocs failed the domestic-industry technical prong for the design patent.
- The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s determinations, and Crocs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the ITC’s determination that the ’858 utility patent was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2. Whether the ITC erred in construing the ’789 design patent and in applying the ordinary observer test for design patent infringement.
3. Whether Crocs satisfied the domestic-industry technical prong for the ’789 design patent under 19 U.S.C. § 1337.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s finding that the ’858 patent was obvious, concluding the ITC misread the prior art and improperly discounted objective indicia of nonobviousness.
- The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s noninfringement determination for the ’789 design patent, holding the ITC used an improper claim-construction approach and misapplied the ordinary observer test by overemphasizing minor differences.
- The Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s finding that Crocs failed the domestic-industry technical prong for the ’789 patent, concluding Crocs’s products embodied the claimed design.
- The court reversed the ITC’s overall no-violation determination and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- An obviousness determination under § 103 must be supported by substantial evidence that the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed elements and that the factfinder properly evaluates objective indicia such as commercial success, copying, and industry praise.
- In design patent cases, claim construction generally should not rely on detailed verbal parsing that focuses decisionmaking on isolated features rather than the design’s overall appearance.
- Under the ordinary observer test (in view of the prior art), design patent infringement turns on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially the same as the patented design in overall visual impression; minor differences may not avoid infringement.
- For § 1337 domestic industry, the technical prong is satisfied when the complainant’s domestic product practices (embodies) the asserted patent; an overly narrow view of the claimed design can distort this analysis.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit rejected the ITC’s no-violation determination, holding that the utility patent was not proven obvious, the design patent was infringed under an overall-appearance comparison, and Crocs’s products satisfied the domestic-industry technical prong, requiring remand for further ITC proceedings.


Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)