2024 Copying Designs Invention 
Patently-O
JULY 17, 2024
As if on cue, the Office has released a new set of updated guidelines – focusing on Artificial Intelligence related inventions and including three new examples. The USPTO continues to be open to issuing patents on AI inventions, including the use of AI. However, there must be a technical solution to a technical problem.
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. May 21, 2024) (en banc). Rejecting the argument that KSR did not implicate design patent obviousness, the court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § GM Global Tech.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SpicyIP
JUNE 25, 2024
Astral Design Infringement Case By Aarav Gupta The High Court of Bombay issued an ad-interim injunction in the design infringement complaint filed by Pidilite Industries Limited (“Pidilite”) against Astral Limited, on the 13th of June, 2024. How are Competing Designs Assessed?
Intellectual Property Law Blog
FEBRUARY 13, 2024
February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is narrower than the ranges disclosed in the patent specification, and (2) the kind of prior art disclosure language which supports a finding of a motivation to combine for an obviousness rejection. 4th 1323 (Fed.
Patently-O
JANUARY 28, 2024
by Dennis Crouch Ficep begins its petition for certiorari with a brilliant statement of how its patented steel manufacturing method has won numerous awards and complements for its innovative approach, been copied by competitors, and led to numerous successful sales. There was copying by competitors.
IPilogue
APRIL 22, 2022
ViiV Healthcare (“ViiV”), majority-owned by GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), claims that Gilead’s bictegravir (sold under the brand name “Biktarvy”) directly copied its dolutegravir’s formulation under U.S. Under this doctrine, the inventor could not then sue another for using the three-wheeled or four-wheeled design.
LexBlog IP
FEBRUARY 13, 2024
February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is narrower than the ranges disclosed in the patent specification, and (2) the kind of prior art disclosure language which supports a finding of a motivation to combine for an obviousness rejection.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
62 
Let's personalize your content