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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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]
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. ,
This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patentinfringement of Crocs’s designpatents. The briefs also discuss, to a limited extend, patentlaw’s false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. .”
As further explained below, companies should thus very seriously consider the inclusion of patent markings on all relevant products. DesignPatent No. 13, 2015, which was the designpatent asserted in the matter noted above. Patent Act has been provided. DesignPatent No.
In the case, Plaintiff California Costume Collections (“CCC”) filed its Complaint against Defendant Pandaloon, LLC (“Pandaloon”) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of U.S. DesignPatent No. D806,325 (the “D325 Patent”) for a “Pet Costume.”
How you do patent only successful products without waiting too long ? You want to patent only successful products, but you need time to determine which products will sell well. US patentlaws, however, impose deadlines on patenting. Would a designpatent be worth your money and time?
. § 101, “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” But there are exceptions and exclusions under patentlaw. See 35 U.S.C. §
Not every idea that can be commercially beneficial is eligible for a patent. Patents are meant to cover new, useful, and non-obvious inventions (utility patents) and new and non-obvious designs (designpatents). The post Patents and Trade Secrets – to Disclose or Conceal?
. § 101, “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” ” But there are exceptions and exclusions under patentlaw.
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