2007 Designs Invention Patent Application 
Patently-O
MAY 21, 2024
by Dennis Crouch In a highly anticipated en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for assessing obviousness of design patents. Rejecting the argument that KSR did not implicate design patent obviousness, the court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § GM Global Tech. Operations LLC , No.
The IP Law Blog
FEBRUARY 2, 2023
Design patents and utility patents are two different things. Design patents protect ornamental designs, such as the shape of a perfume bottle or the design on flatware. To be patentable, however, both designs and functional inventions must satisfy two requirements. Telflex, Inc.,
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SpicyIP
APRIL 30, 2024
By Kevin Preji On 28th Feb, 2024, the Delhi High Court in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in allowing an appeal, clarified the role of the ‘person skilled in the art’ (‘PSITA’) in determining non-obviousness. Subsequently, the patent application was rejected in September 2020.
LexBlog IP
FEBRUARY 2, 2023
Design patents and utility patents are two different things. Design patents protect ornamental designs, such as the shape of a perfume bottle or the design on flatware. To be patentable, however, both designs and functional inventions must satisfy two requirements. Telflex, Inc.,
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 27, 2024
While these new guidelines are not legally binding, they offer important insight into how the Office plans to apply an even more flexible approach to obviousness — something Director Vidal sees as mandated by the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR Int’l Co. 398 (2007). Teleflex Inc. , 2500 words). Read the Guidance Here.
Patently-O
FEBRUARY 19, 2024
Vanda sued, but lost on obviousness grounds — with the court holding that the claimed combination was obvious because it was directed to a set of known elements and a person of ordinary skill would have a “reasonable expectation of success” in reaching the resulting invention. NAPP Amicus Brief. Greenwood , 52 U.S. (11
IP and Legal Filings
MARCH 27, 2024
Introduction The main emphasis of the case pertains to accusations of patent infringement made by the defendant, as well as the subsequent pursuit of damages. In year 2007 the plaintiffs (Bajaj Auto Ltd.) of violating their patents related to the development of “enhanced internal combustion engine technology”.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
117 
Let's personalize your content