Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Asymmetric Bread Pattern Design in Samuels v. Vidal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Justin Samuels & Samuel Rockwell v. Katherine K. Vidal & Andrew Hirshfeld |
| Case Number | 21-2166 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from USPTO |
| Duration | Jul 2021 – Mar 2024 2 years 8 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Unpatentable |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Subject Matter | Asymmetrically Patterned Baked Bread Food Product |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiffs
Inventors and patent applicants who challenged the USPTO’s administrative determination of unpatentability through federal appellate channels.
🛡️ Defendants
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, whose Director (Katherine K. Vidal) and administrative personnel defended the agency’s patentability determination on appeal.
Patent Application at Issue
This case centered on **U.S. Patent Application No. 15/168,768**, which was published as **US20170339965A1**. The application sought protection for a novel food product design:
- • US20170339965A1 — A baked bread food product featuring an asymmetrical surface pattern.
The core legal battleground was whether this claimed invention qualified for patent protection under USPTO standards, challenging the patentability requirements regarding novelty and non-obviousness for food items.
Innovating in Food Product Design?
Ensure your unique food concepts meet patentability standards. Run an FTO analysis before investment.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit issued a clean affirmance, stating: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED.” This confirmed the USPTO’s underlying determination that the claimed asymmetrically patterned baked bread food invention did not meet the statutory requirements for a patent grant. As this was a patentability challenge rather than an infringement action, no damages or injunctive relief were at issue.
Key Legal Issues
The case was classified under **Patentability / Invalidity-Cancellation Action**, indicating the dispute centered on foundational patentability requirements under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. While specific reasoning from the panel wasn’t fully detailed, the affirmed unpatentability in food product applications often involves:
- Obviousness (§ 103): Prior art baked bread designs or patterned food products may have rendered the asymmetric pattern claimed obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
- Lack of Novelty (§ 102): Existing products or publications may have anticipated the claimed configuration.
- Insufficient Claim Differentiation: The claims may have failed to adequately distinguish the invention from prior art.
The USPTO’s successful defense, supported by its legal team, suggests robust prior art or doctrinal grounds for its rejection, which the Federal Circuit found compelling.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in Food Tech
This case highlights critical IP risks in food product design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Food IP Landscape
Learn about patentability challenges and trends in food technology.
- Identify key players in food design patents
- Analyze successful and unsuccessful patent strategies
- Explore related patents in baked goods and patterned foods
🔍 Check My Food Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own food product innovation.
- Input your food product description or features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents or applications
- Get actionable risk assessment report for launch
High Scrutiny Area
Aesthetic variations of common food items
Many Prior Art References
In culinary and food design
Design Patents
Viable for distinct visual features
✅ Key Takeaways
The Federal Circuit affirmed USPTO unpatentability of the asymmetrically patterned bread product application (US15/168,768).
Search related case law →Food product patent applications face rigorous novelty and non-obviousness scrutiny over culinary prior art.
Explore prior art search tools →USPTO validity determinations receive strong appellate deference when properly supported by prior art findings.
Analyze USPTO defense strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
The dispute centered on U.S. Patent Application No. 15/168,768 (Publication No. US20170339965A1), directed to an asymmetrically patterned baked bread food product.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s finding of unpatentability under invalidity/cancellation grounds, confirming the application failed to meet statutory patentability requirements. Specific rejection grounds from the USPTO record would be available via PACER and USPTO records.
It reinforces that food product design patents face rigorous novelty and non-obviousness scrutiny, signaling that applicants must articulate clear functional and structural distinctions from prior art to survive USPTO examination and Federal Circuit review.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Opinions & Orders
- U.S. Patent Application Publication US20170339965A1
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. Patent Law
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.