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.
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.
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.
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 patentlaw decisions are typically written. The case itself involves designpatents covering GM parts, such as front fenders. Teleflex Inc.,
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. by Dennis Crouch.
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., 3d 1334 (Fed.
This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in designpatent infringement 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.
The PatentLaw of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Chinese PatentLaw), which came into force on June 1, 2021, has made some amendments to the sections concerning designpatents, including the introduction of the partial design system and the national priority of design, and the extension of the duration of the design (..)
As Professor Crouch has noted , the Federal Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in the designpatent case of LKQ v. Tl;dr: The primary reference requirement is good but the Federal Circuit has applied it too strictly.) It refers only to the statutory “provisions.” They are fundamentally different types of patents.
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. In China, a GUI alone cannot be registered as a designpatent. Article 2.4 Section 4.4.2
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?
It can be especially useful as “obviousness” prior art because, to quote the Federal Circuit, a “reference that does not provide an enabling disclosure for a particular claim limitation may nonetheless furnish the motivation to combine, and be combined with, another reference in which that limitation is enabled.” Raytheon Techs.
According to the PatentLaw, ‘design’ refers to the whole or a part of a product; any new design of the shape, the pattern or their combination of a product; or the combination of the colour with the shape or pattern of a product that has high aesthetic appeal and is fit for industrial application.
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. In China, a GUI alone cannot be registered as a designpatent. Article 2.4 Section 4.4.2
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. The lower court thus erred by permitting the jury to consider additional references. DesignPatent No.
While copyright law is at the center of a few recent disputes over intellectual property protection for typefaces and fonts, designpatents are an often-overlooked mechanism for protecting these designs. DesignPatents. DesignPatent No. DesignPatent No. DesignPatent No.
DesignPatent No. D806,325 (the “D325 Patent”) for a “Pet Costume.” First, Pandaloon argues that the Complaint fails to allege that the inventor or her attorney were aware of either the prior art costumes during prosecution, that either believed that the references were material, and that either intentionally withheld them.
This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s designpatents. The Court held that “origin” in the Lanham Act refers only to the source of the physical products sold in the marketplace, not to the creator of the underlying creative content.
. § 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.
Previously, in the 12th and 13th Five-Year Plans, the criterion adopted was ‘the number of invention patents per 10,000 people’ – a shift from quantity to quality and policy-led strategic upgrade is evident. Invention patents in strategic emerging industries. Invention patents that have the patent family overseas.
by Dennis Crouch LKQ’s brief for today’s en banc rehearing begins with the following interesting statement: “As with utility patents, the U.S. Constitution and the Patent Act prohibit designpatents on ordinary innovations.” Although case applied pre-1952 law, the reminder here is poignant.
The Spanish government has approved a draft bill to reform the three main industrial property laws: the Trademark Law, the Industrial DesignLaw and the PatentLaw. PatentLaw.
patentlaws. By design, patent challengers get one-bite at the Apple; one shot at invalidating the patent claims based upon obviousness or anticipation. My colleague Tommy Bennett refers to this as the “Rule of Circuit Precedent.”
For fields where the technology develops quickly, the examination process may take longer because more patents are being processed at the USPTO and Examiners must look through more potential prior art references. File a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA, for designpatents only under 37 CFR 1.53(d)).
. § 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.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) refer to the legal rights granted to individuals or businesses for their creations or inventions. Designpatents: Designpatents protect novel ornamental designs for an article. What are Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)?
Also no reference to cannabis, THC, or CBD. Stiffel: invalidated patent on another midcentury modern lamp. Attributed to Jens Risom, 1950s: a daybed can’t get a designpatent, would need to flip up and fry an egg. Designpatent protection: the justification is a puzzle. Moral considerations?
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