Filewrapper

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 […]

Continue Reading →

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 […]

Continue Reading →

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 […]

Continue Reading →

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 →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up