A recent post flagged LKQ v. GM as a potential watershed moment in design patent validity law, calling into question whether In re Rosen, long-standing obviousness precedent, comports with the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR....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
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 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
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