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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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. Telflex, Inc.,
Utility patents are for functional inventions. Designpatents protect the look of something functional, regardless of whether the functional aspects are new. Because of this, a popular use of designpatents is to protect the outside of common consumer products. What’s more common than the written word?
What makes a designpatent better? Designpatents are quite simple. You do a bit of research into the differences between a design and utility patent , and conclude that design is the way to go. A broader patent gives the owner greater rights to stop the competition from copying the patenteddesign.
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.
What is the filing deadline for a US designpatent based on a foreign priority application? When it comes to filing related patent applications across different countries, filing dates are critical. A US designpatent application must be filed within six months of your foreign priority date.
Obviousness of a designpatent is governed by 35 U.S.C. 103, just like utility patents. That primary reference can then be combined with other references to fill in gaps that would have been obvious in order to create the “same overall visual appearance as the claimed design.” DesignPatent Nos.
In a recent en banc decision, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled its prior test for nonobviousness of designpatentinventions, holding that designpatents are subject to the same test as utility patents. LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations (Federal Circuit, May 21, 224).
The Federal Circuit on Wednesday upheld a lower court's decision invalidating a retailer's designpatent on reusable and foldable shopping bags, agreeing that the disputed invention is obvious and functional.
by Dennis Crouch Designpatents 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. at 415, should cause us to eliminate or modify: (a) Durling’s requirement that “[b]efore one can begin to combine prior art designs.
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. An accused design does not have to exactly match the drawings. by Dennis Crouch.
The almost-full Federal Circuit (minus two judges) has overturned the Rosen-Durling test for determining designpatent obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § Under 35 U.S.C. §
Can you see a pending designpatent application? No, US designpatent applications are not published. Therefore, the public cannot monitor or search for a pending designpatent application. Need to apply for a designpatent? Why does it matter that designpatent applications are not published?
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.
On September 26, 2023, the USPTO issued its millionth designpatent. United States Patent D1,000,000 covers the ornamental design for a dispensing comb, as shown below. While utility patents may include several claims, often about 20, a designpatent may only have a single claim. § 171).
When is the designpatent foreign filing deadline? The designpatent foreign filing deadline is 6 months from your earliest design application. Generally, a US applicant will have 6 months from the US designpatent application to file any foreign designpatent applications.
As Professor Crouch has noted , the Federal Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in the designpatent case of LKQ v. In support of LKQ’s petition for rehearing, some of my friends and colleagues submitted an amicus brief wherein they argued against what they called “designpatent doctrinal exceptionalism.”
Is there a single designpatent application that covers the EU? You can file a single European designpatent application that covers the EU countries. If and when granted, a single registration called a Registered Community Design (RCD) would provide you with exclusive rights in all EU countries.
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. By: Weintraub Tobin
by Dennis Crouch Seirus has petitioned for writ of certiorari in its long-running designpatent dispute with Columbia Sportswear. Columbia’s designpatent claims an “ornamental design of a heat reflective material” as shown in the figures. Patent D657,093. Swisa, Inc. , 3d 665 (Fed.
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.
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. Telflex, Inc.,
Is it too late to apply for a designpatent after product sales? Should they apply for a designpatent first or sell the product and see how it goes? If you sell first, have you lost the ability to obtain a patent? How long after selling a product can you still file a designpatent?
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.
the Federal Circuit held that a catheter insertion designpatent was invalid because the claimed design was offered for sale more than a year before the designpatent application was filed. In Junker v. Medical Components, Inc.,
Can you include a logo in your designpatent application? Let me share a strategy if you’re thinking about filing a designpatent application for a new product that might be considered somewhat similar to existing products. It is possible to include a logo in your designpatent application for a product.
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.
Utility patents are for functional inventions. Designpatents protect the look of something functional, regardless of whether the functional aspects are new. Because of this, a popular use of designpatents is to protect the outside of common consumer products. What’s more common than the written word?
At its core, 3-D printing uses computer code in a computer-aided design (CAD) file to instruct specially designed printers to print three-dimensional physical objects one layer at a time. If you have invented a 3-D printed product or have a new printing process, remember to consult an intellectual property lawyer before marketing it.
In late November 2021, Lululemon launched a lawsuit for designpatent infringement against Peloton in relation to perceived similarities in the design elements of various pieces of activewear, including sports bras and leggings.
1] LKQ, an auto parts repair vendor for GM, successfully petitioned for inter partes review of GM’s designpatent for a front fender design, [2] arguing it was anticipated by a prior art reference (Lain) and obvious over Lian alone or in combination with a brochure for the 2010 Hyundai Tucson. Operations LLC. [1]
A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has fundamentally altered the law on prior art anticipation for designpatent applications. SurgiSil design – “Limp Implant”. Therefore, since the applied prior art reference discloses a design for an art tool—i.e., 2020-1940 (Oct. Active Mfg.
What is a designpatent continuation application? US patent law allows an applicant to file a “child” patent application while the “parent” application is still pending. This rule applies to both utility and designpatent applications. Be careful though.
GM Global Technology to rule on the issue of whether the current test for determining obviousness of designpatents, i.e., the Rosen/Durling Standard, is proper in view of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR v. Under the current Standard, the range of applicable prior art combinations in design cases is limited.
Fish Principals Craig Deutsch , Jennifer Huang , and Grace Kim , discuss challenging designpatents at the PTAB in their Law360 Expert Analysis article. Challenging designpatents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is difficult — nearly two-thirds of petitions directed to designpatents have been denied institution.
Supreme Court to weigh in on a federal circuit's ruling that created a new standard for how courts should review challenges to designpatents, which was won by rival Oregon clothing giant Columbia Sportswear. A sportswear company wants the U.S.
the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that Gamon’s designpatents on gravity-fed displays for soup were non-obvious. Campbell comparison of solid-lined portion of claimed design to primary (Linz) reference. In Campbell Soup Co. Gamon Plus, Inc. , 4th 1268 (Fed. 19, 2021) (“ Gamon II ”).
Christine Farley, Authenticity and Design: Why sell a chair for 10x a visually identical chair? Sometimes the replication is exact; design claimants say they’re made with cheaper materials and practices, but midcentury modern design aimed for cheapness and access: the idea that more people can have it now would be a good not a bad.
Supreme Court to save his designpatent, related to an introducer sheath handle, from invalidity based on application of the “on-sale” bar, which prohibits patenting an invention if it has been for sale for over one year prior to the patent filing. A medical device patentee has asked the U.S. By: Knobbe Martens
What makes an invention eligible for patent protection? Not every new thing is patentable. A concept might be unique, and yet ineligible for patent protection. Subject matter eligibility refers to whether an invention is qualified for patent protection. 35 USC 101 – Inventionspatentable.
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