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.
In 2014, Apple and Google released a joint statement saying that it had agreed to settle all patentlitigation with Apple and would even “work together in some areas of patent reform.”. For example, the device has different components, so the award may be limited to specific infringing features.
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. Upon observation, it was found that since the second litigant’s use was of a very similar shade, it was most likely going to confuse customers.
That prevision bars an IPR petitioner involved in patentlitigation from asserting any invalidity grounds that the petitioner had “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” The scope of estoppel provided by 315(e) has been subject to substantial litigation. ” Id. ” Slip Op.
Notably, Apple trademarked its store design in the United States in 2011. Patent and Trademark Office recognized that this distinctive glass store design sets Apple stores apart from other retail establishments. Cracking the Code: What Sets Apple’s Trademark Apart? In 2007, Apple Inc.
For more about Gernsback’s ideas on patents and for more examples of science fiction’s impact on innovation, check out our paper here: [link] [1] This is not to say it does not happen. In litigation, defendants have stronger incentives to find science fiction prior art and use it to build a case for invalidity.
With these technical advances comes an increase in legal activity, including intellectual property (“IP”) filings and litigation. Research and development in the battery industry have led to a notable increase in patent filings at the U.S. IP Enforcement and Litigation Considerations. district courts, the U.S.
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