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 […] Continue Reading →
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 […] Continue Reading →
Bring on the New Year – What is in Store for IP in 2014? Happy New Year to all of our FilewrapperÒ followers! We hope 2013 was a productive year and wish you the best in 2014. As the New Year quickly approaches we would like to share with you a few predictions for 2014 for you to look forward to and for which to prepare! · Increased opportunities […] Continue Reading →
New and Useful – January 31, 2013 · In Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc. the Federal Circuit vacated in part and reversed in part an Eastern District of Texas decision finding Newegg Inc. liable for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,715,314, 5,909,492, and 7,272,639, all relating to electronic commerce. The Federal Circuit offered clarifying insight on the obviousness doctrine. The background […] Continue Reading →
More on Crocs at the CAFC Another decision regarding a number of patents relating to foam based footware, this time held by Crocs, Inc. ("Crocs") has been handed down from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"). In this appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission ("USITC"), the court addressed obviousness of a utility patent and claim construction of […] Continue Reading →
Clogging up the Federal Circuit On December 17, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed in International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. whether the "ordinary observer" test from Egyptian Goddess likewise applies to anticipation of design patents. In Egyptian Goddess, the CAFC dropped the "point of novelty" test for design patent infringement and adopted the "ordinary […] Continue Reading →
En banc Federal Circuit scraps point of novelty test for design patent infringement In an en banc decision this morning, the Federal Circuit has unanimously held that the "point of novelty" test for design patent infringement should no longer be applied. As stated by the court: [W]e hold that the "point of novelty" test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit grants rehearing en banc in design patent case The Federal Circuit today granted a petition for rehearing en banc in a design patent case, Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. In that case, the court held that when a design patent's "point of novelty" is a combination of existing design elements, the point of novelty must be a "non-trivial" advance over the prior […] Continue Reading →
“Ordinary observer” can be commercial buyer when buyer uses designed item as part of retail product In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment of non-infringement of two design patents. Specifically, the court acknowledged that the Supreme Court's decision in Gorham Co. v. White held that an "ordinary observer" for purposes of design patent infringement cannot be an expert. Nevertheless, in this case, the […] Continue Reading →
When point of novelty is a combination of existing elements, it must be a “non-trivial” advance In a case decided yesterday, the Federal Circuit clarified the point-of-novelty test for design patents when the point of novelty is a combination of existing design elements. The court adopted the rule that "to constitute a point of novelty, the combinations must be a non-trivial advance over the prior art." The court likened this analysis […] Continue Reading →