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
Recent patent cases have made it more difficult to obtain utility patent protection for some of the functional aspects of computer software. Strategic use of designpatents can be an important part of an overall patent strategy. Strategic use of designpatents can be an important part of an overall patent strategy.
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.
Evo’s designpatent claims an “ ornamental design for a foldable bag ” as shown in the figures above. district court held the patent invalid as both functional and obvious; and also not infringed. Functionality : Designpatents focus on ornamentality rather than utility. by Dennis Crouch.
This is an important designpatent decision that substantially narrows the scope of prior art available for anticipation rejections in designpatent cases. The result is that it should become easier to obtain designpatent protection. In re Surgisil, LLP , — 4th — ( Fed.
This article supplements our previous post with updated 2021 data. designpatents continue to grow in popularity. Although 2021 saw a slight downtick in the number of issued designpatents compared to the previous two years—most likely caused by lower filings during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic—the number of U.S.
15, 2023) , the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. DesignPatent No. Thus, the prior-art design must be applied to the article of manufacture identified in the claim.
GM decision, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its examiners providing updated guidance and examination instructions in light of the court’s overturning of the long-standing Rosen-Durling test for determining obviousness of designpatents. There is no similarity threshold requirement.
by Dennis Crouch In a highly anticipated en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for assessing obviousness of designpatents. Rejecting the argument that KSR did not implicate designpatent obviousness, the court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § GM Global Tech. Operations LLC , No.
Until now, case law has defined an “article of manufacture” solely for purposes of damages in designpatent infringement actions. The federal court’s decision to reject this position has now harmonized the definition of an article of manufacture across multiple statutes. By: ArentFox Schiff
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that a final rule will be published tomorrow, November 16, in the Federal Register implementing a designpatent practitioner bar. A request for comments (RFC) was also published in October 22.
Last month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published Supplemental Guidance for examination of designpatent applications related to computer-generated electronic images.
A designpatent protects a new, original, ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Ornamental” means that the design is purely decorative; the patentability is based on its visual aspects. 35 USC section 171. By: Weintraub Tobin
Companies associated with William Grecia have filed over a dozen cases alleging infringement of designpatents for “animated graphical user interfaces.” The patent asserted in that case, U.S. D930,702 , was issued in 2021 and claims a “design for a display screen portion with animated graphical user interface.”
DesignPatent #D1,050,634 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Design Application #29888619, titled “Rope Throw Dog Toy” on September 18, 2024, and the patent was issued on November 5, 2024. And on Friday, November 15, I received my official patent in the mail.
Are there any requirements for getting a designpatent? Designpatents can be quite powerful. Even though designpatents are easier to get than utility patents, it is still possible for a design application to be rejected. 35 USC 171 sets forth the requirements for getting a designpatent.
Designpatents and utility patents are two different things. Designpatents 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. 2d 388 (1982).
Suppose that you have an invention disclosure for a design of an article that you want to protect. When you review the invention disclosure, you notice that the design is ornamental, for example, a pattern, on an article such as a chair. You want to file a patent application to protect the design.
Yvon Chouinard, Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman- In a designpatent application, “the subject matter which is claimed is the design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or portion thereof) and not the article itself.”. “The more you know, the less you need.” ?
GM Global Technology Operations, which affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that LKQ failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that GM’s designpatent was anticipated or would have been obvious. Patent D855,508 covers a “vehicle front skid bar.”
This moving chart shows the most popular "article of manufacture" claims in US DesignPatents since the 1970s. pic.twitter.com/Wcy5c1ITAq. — Dennis Crouch (@patentlyo) September 11, 2021.
Addressing a matter of first impression concerning the scope of prior art relevant to a designpatent infringement analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that “to qualify as comparison prior art, the prior-art design must be applied to the article of manufacture identified in the claim.”
Suppose you have a design for an ornamental appearance of an article and start producing the article. Subsequently, you receive notice from an owner of a designpatent that you are infringing their patent. You conduct a prior art search and find some references related to the design.
2022) raises a number of important designpatent law questions, including an issue of first-impression of the scope of “comparison prior art” available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis under Egyptian Goddess, Inc. The case was remanded back to the USPTO 10 months ago, and not patent has issued yet.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to the Federal Register that proposes a separate designpatent practitioner bar. Designpatent practitioners would only be able to participate in designpatent proceedings.
Designpatents protect any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. For the animal and pet industry, designpatents are more popular than ever. By: Jason Nolan
Prior Patently-O coverage of this appeal is available here.) My 2015 article, The PatentedDesign , was mentioned several times during the argument. In that article, I argued that a designpatent’s scope should be limited to the design as applied to a specific type of product.
For several years, the most controversial part of the designpatent world was patenting of portions of a display screen. The chart above shows the year-over-year numbers of designpatents issued claiming some form of an animated or transitional display. MPEP 1504.01(a)(IV) 171, given their transient nature.
The concerns voiced by witnesses and congress members today centered around harm and cost to consumers as a result of technological protection measures (TPMs) and increased use of IP tools such as designpatents to thwart competition for after-market parts.
The Federal Circuit has ruled that “comparison prior art” used in infringement analysis in a designpatent infringement must be applied to the same “article of manufacture” that is identified in the claim of the designpatent. By: AEON Law
In a much-anticipated opinion that addresses an issue of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of “comparison prior art”―prior art considered by the fact finder during an infringement analysis―to the same article of manufacture claimed by the patenteddesign. By: Morgan Lewis
This article supplements our previous post with updated 2021 data. designpatents continue to grow in popularity. designpatents that issued in 2021 was still greater than the number of U.S. designpatents that issued in each year between 2012-2018, and was more than 50% greater than the number of U.S.
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published a notice with supplemental guidance for its staff members examining designpatent claims that include computer-generated images.
In December 2020, the USPTO put out a request for comments on “The Article of Manufacture Requirement.” (For Last week, at Design Day 2022, the USPTO announced that it had completed its summary of those comments. Projected designs are simply not some new, unforeseen concept. We have utility patents for that.
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….
by Dennis Crouch Seirus has petitioned for writ of certiorari in its long-running designpatent dispute with Columbia Sportswear. Questions presented: When looking for comparison prior art, is the article’s function relevant in any way? Must the comparison prior art be the “same article” as claimed?
The USPTO has prepared soon to be published supplemental guidance for designpatent examination for computer-generated electronic images. This guidance relates to determining whether a designpatent claim including a computer-generated electronic image per se or a computer-generated electronic image shown on a display panel (e.g.,
What is the meaning of broken or dashed lines in a designpatent? While I’m not sure if you can call it a loophole, US designpatents enable a particular option in the drawings that can potentially broaden protection. In a US designpatent, the claimed design comprises what is drawn in solid lines.
A designpatent protects a new, original, ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Ornamental” means that the design is purely decorative; the patentability is based on its visual aspects. The design must be a design for a specific article; it cannot exist independently of the article.
A designpatent protects a new, original, ornamental design for an article of manufacture. “Ornamental” means that the design is purely decorative; the patentability is based on its visual aspects. The design must be a design for a specific article; it cannot exist independently of the article.
collectively, “LKQ”) in several designpatent validity disputes, including this case against GM Global Technology Operations and by extension General Motors Co. LKQ neither requested nor paid for preparation of this article, however, and the views expressed. collectively, “GM”). By: Irwin IP LLP
According to Article 27 of the Chinese Patent Law, where a patent application for a design is filed, documents such as a request, drawings or photographs of the design and a brief description of the design shall be submitted. By: Linda Liu & Partners
Are they protectable by designpatents? In this post we will analyze the availability of designpatents for digital commodities and how it compares with other Asian countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore. Article 2.4 In China, a GUI alone cannot be registered as a designpatent. 2014)??(?)???2815?).
Fish Principals Craig Deutsch , Jennifer Huang , and Grace Kim , discuss challenging designpatents at the PTAB in their Law360 Expert Analysis article. Read the full article on Law360. As an initial matter, designpatent trials at the PTAB are relatively rare. PDF copy available.
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