What is the point of novelty test?

The point of novelty test required a patent owner to identify the specific feature that distinguished the design from the prior art and show the accused design copied it. The Federal Circuit abolished it as a separate test in Egyptian Goddess.

How does prior art affect a design patent infringement analysis?

Prior art frames how differences between designs are perceived. Where the prior art is crowded with similar designs, a patented design covers a narrower range, and small differences can defeat an infringement claim.

Home / Learn / The Ordinary Observer Test

Design Patent Infringement: The Ordinary Observer Test

Q: What is the ordinary observer test for design patent infringement?

It asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it was the patented design. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) established it as the sole test.

Updated September 16, 2026

Short answer: in the United States, design patent infringement is judged by one test — whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into buying the accused product thinking it was the patented one. The Federal Circuit set this out in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), and rejected the older "point of novelty" test.

Where the test comes from

The standard traces back to the Supreme Court's decision in Gorham Co. v. White (1871), which asked whether the two designs produce substantially the same effect on the eye of an ordinary observer, "giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives." That formulation is still the heart of the analysis today.

What Egyptian Goddess changed

Before 2008, courts typically applied two separate requirements: the designs had to look substantially the same and the accused design had to appropriate the specific point of novelty that distinguished the patented design from the prior art. The Federal Circuit found that the second requirement invited courts to break a design into individual features rather than judging the overall appearance, and it abolished it as a separate test.

Several practical consequences follow:

The ordinary observer test is the sole test for infringement.
The hypothetical observer is familiar with the prior art in that product field.
Prior art is used to frame how differences between designs are perceived — the closer the prior art sits to the patented design, the more the differences matter.
The accused infringer carries the burden of producing prior art; the patent owner still has to prove infringement.
A detailed verbal claim construction of the design is neither required nor forbidden — the comparison is primarily visual.

Why prior art does so much work

If a crowded field already contains many similar-looking products, a design that sits close to that field protects a narrower slice, and modest differences can defeat a claim. A design that departs sharply from everything before it tends to be read more broadly. This is why a search that only returns the one patent you were worried about is not much use: the surrounding prior art is what tells you how much that patent really covers.

Comparing this with the EU and UK approach

The US "ordinary observer" framing is not universal. EU and UK design law asks whether the accused product produces a different overall impression on the informed user, taking the designer's degree of freedom into account. The wording differs, but the practical question is similar: how much visual difference is enough, given what already existed in the market.

What this means if you are not in court

Infringement is ultimately a legal conclusion, and no search tool produces one. What a search can do is show you how crowded the field is, how close your product sits to existing registrations, and which records deserve a closer look. That is screening, not adjudication — and it is the step worth doing before you commit to tooling, inventory, or a listing. See our infringement check guide for the practical workflow.

Frequently asked questions

What is the ordinary observer test in one sentence?

Would an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it was the patented design?

Is the point of novelty test still used?

No. Egyptian Goddess abolished it as a separate infringement test, though prior art remains central to how similarities are assessed.

Can a design patent be infringed if the designs are not identical?

Yes. The test asks whether the accused design is substantially the same in overall appearance, not whether it is an exact copy.

Sources

Screen a product's appearance with PatPulse using keyword search or an uploaded image across US, EU and UK design records.