Posts Tagged: "design patents"

Patents confer rights and when you have rights you have an asset that can be sold or licensed. But you will have an asset that can in some circumstances be sold or licensed even before you actually obtain a patent. Increasingly more and more companies are looking for outside ideas and inventors can and do strike deals before a patent is issued. It is true, however, that the further you are down the path toward a final solution being real the more valuable your invention will be. With this in mind, there may be instances where getting some patent protection quickly could be beneficial. This article discusses several strategies for more quickly obtaining a patent.

While engaging in a manner most likely to lead to success is critical for any company, it is even more important for toy entrepreneurs for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, all too frequently costly mistakes are made. Here are five mistakes that I see toy companies make far too often… One of the ultimate ironies is that many toy companies spend most of the time coming up with the perfect name for their company but then don’t take the necessary steps to secure that name. Usually, companies either fail to run a trademark search or wait too long to file the trademark. The best time to discover a trademark issue for your name of choice is at the outset because any conflict can easily be resolved by picking a new name; and trust me while that may not seem desirable in the long run it will save you a lot of time and money.

Apple requested that the Federal Circuit keep the case and the panel review the decision in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, while Samsung requested that the Federal Circuit remand the matter to the district court for a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit adopted neither suggestion. Instead, the Federal Circuit chose to remand the case for further proceedings, which the panel explained may or may not include a new trial on damages. Judge Koh will decide whether a new trial on damages is necessary.

For patent holders in design patent infringement cases, having multiple component design patents for any given product will help maximize the potential damage award. A multiple design patent strategy is now more important than ever. Given the ease with which design patents are obtained and the relative inexpensive cost associated with obtaining a design patent (at least when compared to the cost of obtaining a utility patent) innovators who must rely on design patent protection will almost certainly need to more strategically acquire design patents as part of a truly robust design patent portfolio building strategy.

The relatively short opinion by Supreme Court standards – just over eight pages – puts it simply: “The text resolves this case. The term ‘article of manufacture,’ as used in §289, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product.”

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple which found by a unanimous 8-0 vote that a damages award for design patent infringement may be limited to revenues attributable to a component of an article of manufacture and not the entire article itself. Tuesday’s SCOTUS decision overturns a judgment reached in May 2015 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would have awarded nearly $400 million in damages to Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) for the infringement of three design patents by mobile devices marketed by Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930).

It is that time once again when we look back on the previous year in preparation to close the final chapter on 2016 and to look ahead toward 2017. With patent reform surprisingly stalled, the biggest news stories of the year may have been the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)… As 2016 started and through at least the first half of 2016 it seemed as if the PTAB had become rather all-powerful and completely unsusceptible to judicial restraints. As we close 2016 and look forward to 2017 a decidedly different picture seems like it is emerging… The other big news story of 2016 was with respect to patent eligibility…

There has not been a single quarter in which more than 82 lawsuits involving allegations of infringing at least one design patent have been filed in U.S. district court going back to the first quarter of 2011… From the start of 2012 through the third quarter of 2016, a full 36.4 percent of design patent actions also include a claim of trademark infringement. In other patent cases, there is only a 2 percent overlap between patent and trademark claims in the same case.

The Supreme Court need not wait for Congress to act. This is a case of first impression in interpreting the provision. Guided by its own law on design patent infringement and legislative history, the Court can reach the common sense result provided by the provision’s wording. Design owners should be made whole, but not unjustly enriched. Awarding the infringer’s total profits regardless of the contribution of the design to the end product’s value subverts patent law’s mandate to promote technological progress.

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, from 2pm to 3pm ET, Gene Quinn will host a free webinar discussion that will explore the genesis of the patent battle between Apple and Samsung, focusing on the design patent infringement fight currently at the United States Supreme Court. In addition to taking as many questions from the audience as possible, we will: (1) Ask the question “how did we get here” and provide a business/tech perspective on the battle. (2) Provide a quick primer on design patents and the test for determining if there is infringement. (3) Discuss the positions taken by Apple, Samsung and the Solicitor General at the Supreme Court. (4) Make predictions regarding what the Supreme Court will ultimately decide.

Much of the court’s line of questioning at times sought answers to whether a standard could be applied in a design patent infringement case in such a way that adequately identifies the amount of profit that could be attributed to a particular aspect of a product’s design. In the words of Justice Kennedy: “Once you’ve identified the relevant article, then it seems to me necessarily what you’re doing is apportioning profits. I just don’t see how we can get away from that word.” While it may have seemed that the oral arguments went well for Samsung, that is not always, or even usually, a good gauge of how the Court will ultimately decide. Of course, time will tell.

Typically an inventor wants to protect the function of the invention when at all possible. But what if you cannot get a utility patent because the underlying invention is not functionally unique, it just looks different? Then you are in the realm of the design patent. Also, what if you have something that is functionally unique but also has a unique visual presentation? Then you might be able to get both a utility patent to cover the function and a design patent to cover the unique physical characteristics that manifest in visual ornamentation.

Disruptive innovation, like what we are seeing in the health care industry, often causes disruption elsewhere, and the legal landscape is no exception. The life cycle of digital health products and services — from conception to promotion — presents a unique set of legal challenges, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the matrix of issues facing these products. As a lawyer, these are the kind of projects that remind us of law school exams — lots of issues and, often, no clearly defined answers or solutions… This article explores some of those tools and why one might choose to pursue one or, in the more probable case, some combination of them.

With over 205 billion in cash reserves at last count, Apple certainly doesn’t “need” the full nine-figure damage award. And, unless Congress steps in and amends the damage award statute, Apple will likely find itself defending its “total profits” for devices even where accused of infringing minor design features. Given the current statutory language the Supreme Court could very well agree with the Federal Circuit and find that it is bound by the clear statutory language. Clearly it is time for Congress to step in and amend Section 289, possibly to add apportionment.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has published its annual World Intellectual Property Indicators. The 2015 report dissects the macro trends associated with filing activity and registrations for 2014 in the following intellectual property areas: patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and plant varieties… The twenty-year era of growth in industrial design patent applications came to an abrupt end in 2014… The decline in global applications stems primarily from the pronounced decrease in resident filings at the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO), which fell 14.9% over the past year.