Lanard Toys Limited v. Dolgencorp LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
958 F.3d 1337 (2020)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Lanard Toys Limited (Lanard) (plaintiff) patented and copyrighted its design for a child’s chalk pencil. Dolgencorp LLC (defendant) distributed the pencil for retail sale by Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc. (TRU) (defendant). After Ja-Ru, Inc. (defendant) began making a similarly designed pencil, Dolgencorp and TRU dropped Lanard’s product and began ordering Ja-Ru’s product instead. Lanard sued Dolgencorp, TRU, and Ja-Ru in federal district court for design-patent infringement, among other claims. By examining drawings that accompanied Lanard’s patent application, the court was able to distinguish patentable, ornamental elements in the Lanard pencil’s design from nonpatentable, purely functional elements devoid of any ornamentation, and from nonpatentable design elements derived from prior art. The court then conducted a side-by-side comparison of the Lanard and Ja-Ru pencils to look for overall similarities in their design. The court concluded that the two pencils’ designs were so dissimilar that no ordinary observer could mistake Ja-Ru’s pencil for Lanard’s pencil. The court dismissed the case. Lanard appealed to the Federal Circuit, which conducted a de novo review of the trial record.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.