Judge Jennifer L. Rochon (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted Defendant Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of seven design patents. Plaintiff Michael Shunock (“Shunock”) asserted U.S. Patent Nos.: D956,802; D956,803; D956,804; D956,805; D956,806; D956,807; and D956,808 (together, the “Asserted Patents”) against “Apple’s Activity Rings” used in the Apple Watch and iPhone. Slip Op. at 1-2. The Asserted Patents claim “‘[t]he ornamental design for a display screen with graphical user interface, as shown and described” in various figures. Id. at 12.

Shunock moved for partial summary judgment on invalidity and Apple moved for summary judgment on invalidity and non-infringement. Id. at 1-2. Both parties also moved to preclude expert testimony from opposing experts. Id. at 1-2. The court granted Apple’s motions for non-infringement for all Asserted Patents and denied the remaining motions as moot. Id. at 2.

Apple raised three non-infringement grounds. The first ground was based on the claimed requirement for “a display screen with graphical user interface.” Id. at 18-19. Apple argued that “because the accused products do not display any GUI at the time of sale, the accused designs do not meet” this claim limitation. Id. at 18-19. Second, Apple argued that Shunock’s “expert [] misapplies the governing ordinary observer test.” Id. at 19. Third, Apple argued that “under the proper legal standard, no reasonable jury could find that an ordinary observer would confuse the accused designs with the asserted patents given the significant visual differences between them.” Id.

The court rejected Apple’s first ground, explaining that it “is undisputed that normal use of the iPhone and Apple Watch can include configuring each device to display the Activity Rings.” Id. at 28. On the second and third grounds, Apple identified various differences between the accused products and the claims, including: “(1) ‘the vertical alignment’ of the rings ‘at 12 o’clock’ compared to the staggered alignment of the Asserted Patents’ arcs; (2) ‘the [greater] thickness and [reduced] spacing’ of the rings relative to that of the Asserted Patents’ arcs; (3) the rings’ central ‘positioning on the screen’ versus the left alignment of the Asserted Patents’ arcs; (4) the presence of fixed ‘circular ring tracks’ solely in the Activity Rings design; and (5) the presence of ‘arrow symbols’ solely in the Activity Rings design.” Id. at 28-29. Shunock did not “dispute that those differences exist” but relied on its expert’s opinion that the differences were “minor” and the “‘designs’ overall visual impression[s]’ are not plainly dissimilar.” Id. at 29. The court disagreed with Shunock and found that they were “plainly dissimilar such that no reasonable jury could find infringement.” Id.

In its analysis, the court described the claimed design as being “two- and three-arc designs.” Id. at 33.

The court reasoned that with “respect to the two-arc Asserted Patents . . . no reasonable juror could find that an ordinary observer would perceive any configuration of the Activity Rings—a three-ring design—as substantially similar to the Asserted Patents.” Id. at 37-38. Further, as the court explained, “the Activity Rings dramatically differ from the Asserted Patents with respect to the alignment of the arcs . . . The Activity Rings [] have the visual effect of a stopwatch tracking the passage of time; the rings evoke progress along a defined path from a shared starting point . . . In contrast, the Asserted Patents create a visual impression of a ray expanding or radiating outward.” Id. at 39. The court further noted differences in arc spacing, arc thickness, and centering. Id. at 39-41.

The case is Shunock v. Apple, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08598 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2026).