This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In our new paper, The Truth About DesignPatents , we debunk three widely held—but incorrect—views about U.S. designpatents. Taken together, these myths paint a grim picture of designpatents: Half of all designpatent applications are rejected. Acquiring DesignPatents.
These appear to be the first—and certainly the first precedential—Federal Circuit cases dealing with the merits of one of the numerous “Schedule A” designpatent cases that have been filed in recent years in the NDIL. It is clear, from reading the decision, that the designpatent infringement claims lacked merit.
Over the last 20 years, the total number of designpatents issued per year in the United States has erupted. As illustrated in the graph below and further highlighted in this animated graph, in the 30 year period between the years 1971 and 2000 a total of nearly 219,000 designpatents were issued by the U.S.
Samsung: The Supreme Court presided over a few major technology cases in 2019, but in one of the most important ones, it reversed a ruling that found Samsung liable to pay its profit from the entire line of Galaxy phones in 2011. Therefore profits shouldn’t be awarded based the phone’s full price.
Samsung : This was a case, from 2011 to 2018, where Apple took the word against Samsung, claiming infringement of its smartphone design and utility patents. 2] Adidas vs. The lawsuit raised an understanding of the value of enduring trademarks and the perils of “knock-off” designs. Foreign Cases Apple v.
Part 5: The IP Hidden Gems: Trade Secrets and Industrial Designs. Patenting software, and inventions related to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning, known as computer-implemented inventions (CII) in patent lingo, is a complicated and evolving area.
In fact, Track One utility patent applications had an average success rate of over 86% for the decade starting from 2011 to 2020. Unlike Rocket Docket in designpatent applications, a Track One request for prioritized examination does not require a prior art search.
As made clear in the appellate opinion, a single meeting in August 2011 was central to the district court’s inventorship holding and the basis for Blue Gentian’s appeal. ’” In this aspect, the opinion clarifies that the same standard of contribution/inventorship applies to designpatents as utility patents.
This success is largely attributed to Apple’s effective trademarking of various designs and sounds related to its products and services. Notably, Apple trademarked its store design in the United States in 2011. Design Aesthetics: Apple is known for its minimalist and sleek product design. In 2007, Apple Inc.
Last week, an Illinois federal court judge ruled that UGG is not a generic term for sheepskin boots and that the United States owner of the popular UGG brand, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, can pursue its claims for trademark and designpatent infringement against a company called Australian Leather.
Color drawings may be submitted via EFS-Web in most types of applications and proceedings, including: Nonprovisional designpatent applications, including reissue designpatent applications; Provisional applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); Nonprovisional utility patent applications under 35 U.S.C.
For example, in 2011, during the “smart phone wars,” Samsung argued Apple’s iPad designpatent was anticipated by what appear to be “tablet” computers in scenes from Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey. link] [2] These quotes come from Gernsback’s editorials in Amazing Stories.
By design, patent challengers get one-bite at the Apple; one shot at invalidating the patent claims based upon obviousness or anticipation. 8, 2011). Rather, the instructions properly walked through factors for determining whether a particular sale occurred in the United States. = = = =. S1375 (daily ed.
In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile litigations in the United States involving patents directed to each of the above-referenced components, including patent litigations related to cathodes, 13 anodes, 14 separators, 15 electrolytes, 16 battery cell packaging, 17 and battery module packaging.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content