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
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
Big changes to design patent invalidity law may be coming. A pending IPR appeal challenges the Federal Circuit’s 40-year-old obviousness formula as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s rejection of “a rigid rule that limits...more
After a final written decision issues, an IPR petitioner is statutorily estopped from going back to the district court and arguing that the same claims are “invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could...more
This is a follow up to our earlier post about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021 decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal...more
8/11/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
The United States Supreme Court has delivered its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, which determined whether appointments of administrative patent judges to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
7/20/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated as informative its decision instituting post-grant review and addressing the issues of design patent functionality in Sattler Tech Corp. v. Humancentric Ventures, LLC. ...more
On May 5, 2020 the Federal Circuit formally barred petitioners from seeking Arthrex remands. The Court issued a precedential order clarifying that only qualifying patent owners may seek the Arthrex remedy. Petitioners, unlike...more
On Monday, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order denying en banc rehearing that had been requested by all three of the parties to the Arthrex decision...more
Design patent obviousness requires a heavy threshold burden of proof. Challengers have to find a “primary reference,” i.e., prior art that has “basically the same” design characteristics as the claimed design. Below is an...more
The most persuasive IPR petitions offer fresh unpatentability theories never considered before. But petitions that simply repackage old issues often don’t gain traction. So, when you’re citing prior art that was before the...more
The PTAB’s recent decision instituting post-grant review of a design patent in Man Wah Holdings Ltd. v. Raffel provides interesting perspectives on how design patent invalidity theories work. This decision highlights the...more
On October 23, 2018, the PTAB found unpatentable B/E Aerospace’s U.S. Design Patent No. D764,031 (“’031 patent”). C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., PGR2017-00019, Paper 37 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2018). The ’031 patent...more
11/13/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Design Patent ,
Final Written Decisions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Priority Patent Claims ,
Section 102 ,
Section 112 ,
Utility Patents
Like utility patents, design patent validity can be challenged in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. Nonetheless, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) tends to reach different results in design...more
An expert asserting that a patent claim reciting different features than the prior art is nonetheless “equivalent” to the prior art must address and account for the recited limitations head-on, or otherwise lose persuasive...more
2/19/2018
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Evidentiary Hearings ,
Expert Testimony ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Software Patents
On February 1, the PTAB held its first “Boardside Chat” of 2018, which featured three judges discussing appeals and AIA trial proceedings for design patents. Not only are such proceedings less common for design patents than...more
2/7/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Design Patent ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO ,
Utility Patents
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
In the wake of the high-profile dispute in Apple v. Samsung, design patent procurement and enforcement activity has increased significantly. But practitioners may not appreciate that design patent validity can be attacked...more