The Long-Standing Rosen-Durling Test used to Assess Nonobviousness of Design Patents is OVERRULED

By Gregory Lars Gunnerson

The long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to assess nonobviousness of design patents required a primary reference must be “basically the same” as the challenged design claim, and further that any secondary references must be “so related”. The Federal Circuit had never considered the merits of the Rosen-Durling test. Hearing LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations […]

Improvements in the Brazilian Design Patent Practice

By Gregory Lars Gunnerson

Our esteemed colleagues at Daniel IP report to us that there are exciting new rules that have come into effect for designs in Brazil. They authored the following summary of the new laws. We believe this summary will be extremely useful to many U.S. Applicants considering protection in Brazil in the design space. We highly […]

USPTO Proposes New Rules that Would Create a New Design Patent Practitioner Bar

By Joseph M. Hallman

On May 16, 2023, the USPTO published proposed rules that provide for the creation of a new design patent practitioner bar. The proposed design patent practitioner bar would provide for a new designation of practitioner able to practice before the USPTO. This newly proposed designation allows individuals to be classified as design patent practitioners wherein […]

Design Patents Just Got Easier

By Kirk M. Hartung

In a short, four page, precedential opinion issued on October 4, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that design patents are limited to specific articles of  manufacture, and not a design in the abstract. In re Surgisil, L.L.P., case number 2020-1940. The patent applicant, Surgisil, filed a design patent […]

Right to Repair: Infringement or Exhaustion Part 2

This post is part 2 of a series of posts relating to a person’s right to repair your purchased products. Part 1 discussed the general background and several policy arguments surrounding both sides of this issue. This post will discuss the main patent laws and legal doctrine related to the right to repair. The central […]

Design Patents and Indefiniteness

By Luke T. Mohrhauser

            In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit addressed indefiniteness and enablement issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they apply to design patent applications. In In re: Ron Maatita, the court held that two-dimensional drawings in design patents can meet the definiteness and enablement requirements under § 112, and that the determination includes, at […]

No Sympathy for Samsung

By Gregory Lars Gunnerson

In May, an eight-member California federal jury awarded Apple a staggering $500+ million verdict as a result of a patent litigation lawsuit that has been ongoing for at least 7 years. The verdict has proved to be particularly puzzling for patent law professors and other patent advocates that disagree over whether an article of manufacture in relation […]

Surge in Patent Applications Related to 3D Printing: Is Yours One of Them?

The USPTO recently released statistics that over 8,000 patent applications were filed in 2016 related to 3D printing (additive manufacturing). Some of the interesting 3D printing inventions that have been subject to publicity include,prosthetic hands and fingers for children without fingers, three-dimensional bioprinting of human-compatible vascularized tissue developed by graduate students at Harvard, and a […]

Broad Definition of “Article of Manufacture” Costs Apple $400M

Since May 2015, Filewrapper, along with the intellectual property community, has been closely watching the heated Apple v. Samsung design patent and trade dress row.  On December 6th, the Supreme Court upset the controversial $400 million damages award to Apple, essentially holding that such penalties are available for the “article of manufacture,”which may not mean the […]

Apple v. Samsung-Part II, A Design Patent Breakdown

  The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided the appeal for Apple v. Samsung, involving allegations of trade dress dilution, design patent infringement, and utility patent infringement. The case relates to Samsung’s alleged copying of Apple’s popular iPhone smartphone. A jury previously found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility […]