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.
Guest Post by Sarah Burstein , Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Companies associated with William Grecia have filed over a dozen cases alleging infringement of designpatents for “animated graphical user interfaces.” The test for designpatentinfringement doesn’t change that.
Earlier this month, ten of the world’s largest companies were accused of infringingdesignpatents claiming animated graphical user interfaces (GUIs). These assertions were made in addition to at least ten other lawsuits filed since September 2021 asserting animated GUI designpatents. By: Quarles & Brady LLP
This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in designpatentinfringement analysis. Still, ornamental logos found on the accused product can still be relevant as visual distractors in the process of evaluating similarities and differences between the claimed design and accused design.
2022) raises a number of important designpatentlaw 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.
Claire La Mantia is an IP Innovation Clinic Fellow and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. In late November 2021, Lululemon launched a lawsuit for designpatentinfringement against Peloton in relation to perceived similarities in the design elements of various pieces of activewear, including sports bras and leggings.
The Federal Circuit has ruled that “comparison prior art” used in infringement analysis in a designpatentinfringement must be applied to the same “article of manufacture” that is identified in the claim of the designpatent. By: AEON Law
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently narrowed the scope of “comparison prior art” that may be used in a designpatentinfringement analysis. Comparison prior art” includes references used to help highlight distinctions between a plaintiff’s claimed design and a defendant’s design that is accused of infringing.
A district court recently refused to exclude testimony regarding consumer surveys conducted by a designpatent expert, holding instead that the consumer surveys may be probative of how an ordinary observer would view the designs at issue, and thus could assist the factfinder in determining designpatentinfringement under the ordinary observer test.
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.
is pursuing designpatentinfringement claims for one of its many fixtures. The Wisconsin-based company says an importer is profiting from Kohler’s designs and has filed a patentinfringement lawsuit to stop Sweethome from selling certain faucets. Sweethome d/b/a Sweethome247.com, com, Case No.
and its affiliated parties (“Woodland”), asserting designpatentinfringement, false advertising, trade secret. 26, 2024) - On August 26, 2024, the Western District of Wisconsin issued a decision adjudicating a number of motions in a case involving a thicket of intellectual property claims and counterclaims. By: Irwin IP LLP
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
15, 2023) , the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patentinfringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. DesignPatent No. Background Columbia asserted U.S.
While more competitors are generally good for consumers, competition must be fair in order to be lawful. Patents give sellers a fair and lawful way to block competitors from copying innovative products. So, how do you use your patent effectively to block an infringing Amazon ASIN?
manufacturer of the Hydrow Rower, brought a designpatentinfringement and trade dress infringement action against iFit Health & Fitness (formerly Icon Health & Fitness) in the District of Delaware. On February 14, 2022, Hydrow, Inc., By: Harness IP
This PatentLaw case involves a patentinfringement lawsuit brought by Fa-Hsing Lu against Hyper Bicycles, Inc. regarding two designpatents Lu holds for the ornamental design of a bicycle. By: Whitcomb Selinsky, PC
collectively, “LKQ”) in several designpatentinfringement matters, including this case against GM Global Technology Operations and by extension General Motors Co. collectively, “GM”). By: Irwin IP LLP
Addressing a matter of first impression concerning the scope of prior art relevant to a designpatentinfringement 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.”
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. 21, 2024) (question paraphrased).
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) clarified the law on comparison prior art in designpatent cases. In the initial case, Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. (“Columbia”) sued Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. (“Seirus”) for infringing U.S.
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. Designpatents protect only the appearance of the article, not any aspect of functionality.
By Sarah Burstein, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School. 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. 21-2150 (Fed. 2022); ABC Corp.
PUMA also alleges that the Brooks shoe the “Aurora BL” infringes upon their DesignPatent No. D897,075 and is being sold in connection with the infringing use of PUMA’s NITRO mark. Therefore, Plaintiff is seeking damages for willful trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. Young and Magistrate Matthew P.
For nearly 30 years, the inclusion of a trademark in the design of a defendant's product did not mean much in the designpatentinfringement analysis. That changed on August 6, 2021, in Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., By: Jones Day
The parties faced off in a rematch at the Federal Circuit following an earlier bout involving the same designpatent, U.S. The Quarles & Brady design rights legal team is nationally-recognized for its extensive knowledge and practice experience in this complex and important field. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.
Designpatents offer valuable protection in a patent portfolio, including conferring different strategic advantages compared to those of utility patents. For example, designpatents allow for recovery of “total profits” — not just lost profits or reasonable royalties as provided for infringed utility patents. [1]
The FAC alleged, inter alia, patentinfringement of both utility and designpatents by promotional vehicles supplied by Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc. On March 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Wang (S.D.N.Y.) recommended granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ T-Mobile, USA, Inc. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s
Johnson claims it owns multiple utility and designpatents including those at issue in this case, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,022,332 , 10,684,029 , 10,528,013 , 8,826,165 , 8,190,728 , D788,785 , D924,888 , D924,890 (collectively, “Asserted Patents”). The case was assigned to Judge Damon R. Gotsch, Sr. 3:21-cv-00501-DRL-MGG.
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - NETFLIX, INC. DIVX, LLC [OPINION] (2022-1138, 9/11/2023) (Hughes, Stoll, and Stark) - Stoll, J. The Court vacated the Board’s finding that an asserted prior art reference fails to qualify as analogous art.
The company also owns a designpatent covering the product. The action would allege both (1) Federal PatentInfringement; and (2) Unfair Competition (based upon Texas state law). In 2021, three different competitors started selling similar products. Federal Court.
Cross, the Plaintiff is the owner of three designpatents for convertible t-shirt designs, U.S. Patent Nos. D/580,633, D/581,136 , and D/341,471 (collectively, the “Patents in Suit”). Practice Tip: The current designpatent term, if filed on or after May 13, 2015 is 15 years from the date of grant.
s bid to dismiss part of a designpatentinfringement claim raised by Converse Inc. in its lawsuit over high top sneaker designs, finding that the shoes' looks are similar enough to preserve Converse's claim at this time. A Massachusetts federal judge on Monday denied Steve Madden Ltd.'s
The Federal Circuit on Tuesday turned down a legal effort by hoverboard manufacturers to disqualify a Chicago federal judge for "a preconceived bias" against "foreign entities" in a designpatentinfringement suit launched by a Chinese hoverboard manufacturer.
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit recently vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in the long-running designpatent dispute between outdoor apparel companies Columbia Sportswear and Seirus Innovative Accessories. DesignPatent No. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. ,
Recent Headlines in the IP World: Blake Brittain: Patent Judge Leaves U.S. Tribunal for Law Firm Arnold & Porter (Source: Reuters). Angus Liu : Roche Settles Lawsuit Claiming AstraZeneca’s Ultomiris Infringes Delivery Patent (Source: Fierce Pharma). Sherkow: Preprint Servers and Patent Prior Art (Source: SSRN).
Apple, Amazon, Tesla and two other household names are the latest to face patentinfringement suits by a patent-holding company that claims they swiped its user interface design.
remain in settlement talks to resolve a patentinfringement dispute over high-top sneaker designs, according to a Tuesday court filing, entering at least their fourth month of trying to resolve the suit. Steve Madden and Converse Inc.
15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patentinfringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. In Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed.
In June 2021 the Shenzhen Administration for Market Regulation (Shenzhen AMR) issued the first ever provisions on administrative injunctions against the infringement of a designpatents, including online infringements. It was a revolutionary provision. I covered this topic in more details in a previous blog ( here ).
Siemens and GlobalFoundries nabbed a major win Tuesday when a Delaware federal magistrate judge granted the semiconductor makers' summary judgment bids in a patentinfringement case, holding that the chip designpatents the companies are accused of infringing are invalid under Alice.
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