In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...more
Those following this blog knew change was coming to design patent obviousness in the LKQ v. GM decision by the en banc Federal Circuit. In its May 21, 2024 decision, the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test...more
6/20/2024
/ Design Patent ,
Examiners ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
Now a more flexible Graham v. John Deere analysis applies.
On May 21, 2024, the en banc Federal Circuit overruled the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, holding that Supreme Court law dictates "a more...more
The en banc Federal Circuit has overruled the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, holding that the Supreme Court’s KSR decision dictated “a more flexible approach . . . for determining non-obviousness.” LKQ v....more
Changes to design patent validity law may be coming thanks to LKQ v. GM, a case that we’ve been tracking since April 2021. On February 5, 2024, in a rare en banc hearing, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked...more
2/13/2024
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Design Patent ,
En Banc Review ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
In February, the Federal Circuit declined to modify or overrule its long-standing test for obviousness in design patents, the Rosen-Durling test, despite arguments that the Supreme Court overruled it in KSR v. Teleflex. A...more
As with utility patents, a patentee can counter obviousness of a patented design by producing objective evidence that the design was non-obvious, like commercial success, copying, etc. But to be persuasive, a nexus must...more
For nearly 30 years, the inclusion of a trademark in the design of a defendant's product did not mean much in the design patent infringement analysis. That changed on August 6, 2021, in Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc....more
These days, we generally think about inter partes review as a first option to challenge patentability. Rightly so. But don’t forget about ex parte reexamination (“XPR”). Even in the IPR era, patent challengers are still...more
6/29/2021
/ Amazon Marketplace ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Takedown Notices
Deciding who invented patents can be “one of muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of the patent law.” Mueller Brass Co. v. Reading Industries, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 1357, 1372 (E.D. Pa. 1972). But identifying who...more
Inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings often arise in the context of high-stakes patent infringement litigation, and district courts frequently stay litigation pending parallel IPRs, which may fully resolve a...more
While design patents follow many of the same rules as utility patents, the application of those rules in determining design patent infringement can be less than straightforward. But a recent Initial Determination by ALJ...more
This win is one of the most significant in U.S. history for a design patent case.
Vacuum and appliance manufacturer Dyson voluntarily dismissed its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 30,...more
U.S. patent laws allow for the disgorgement of the "total profits" earned by a design patent infringer deemed to have applied the "patented design" to "any article of manufacture." The disgorged profits historically were...more
6/28/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
35 U.S.C. § 289 ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Article of Manufacture ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Design Patent ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS
On May 24, 2018, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California awarded Apple over $533 million in damages for Samsung's infringement of three Apple design patents covering portions of Apple's...more
5/30/2018
/ Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Article of Manufacture ,
Damages ,
Design Patent ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Samsung ,
SCOTUS ,
Smartphones ,
Special Damages
In district courts’ claim construction analyses, intrinsic evidence is of paramount importance. Although extrinsic evidence “may be useful to the court,” it is considered “less significant” than the claim language,...more