Remove 2007 Remove Designs Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness

Patently-O

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. ยง GM Global Tech. Operations LLC , No.

article thumbnail

Obviousness Test for Design Patents Unchanged

The IP Law Blog

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.,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently-O

20-891 (CVSG requested May 3, 2021); Res Judicata and the Patent-Specific Kessler Doctrine : PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. 20-1394 (CVSG requested October 4, 2021); Undermining Jury Decisions : Olaf Sรถรถt Design, LLC v. The fourth and final case with a pending CVSG is Olaf Sรถรถt Design, LLC v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. ,

article thumbnail

Reevaluating Design Patent Obviousness

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch Design patents continue to rise in importance, but the underlying law full of eccentricities. The crux of the issue lies in the manner patent law decisions are typically written. 398 (2007), overrule or abrogate In re Rosen, 673 F.2d The case under scrutiny is LKQ Corp. Teleflex Inc.,

article thumbnail

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit assesses the equitable powers of a legislative court: the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Patently-O

This guest post was authored by Joel Smith, a 3L at the University of Missouri School of Law, with support from the team at the Mizzou Law Veterans Clinic. Why is there a post about a veterans law case on a patent law blog? Mr. Taylor did so in early 2007. In Burris v. Wilkie , 888 F.3d 3d 1352 (Fed.

article thumbnail

Within The Scope of This Concise Analysis, the Case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd. Is Investigated

IP and Legal Filings

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 โ€œenhanced internal combustion engine technologyโ€. 1903 RPC 225.

article thumbnail

Inventorship Correction Affirmed for Patent on Intermodal Container for Transporting Gaseous Fluids

Patently-O

Specifically, the judge determined that the port boss slippage problem precluded the original prototype from being viable, and Mackay and Hewson’s design input, like the starburst grooves, helped solve that critical issue. Here, the acts associated with co-inventorship occurred back in 2007. 663 (2014).

Patent 59