Posts Tagged: "design patents"

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.

Design patents cover visual, nonfunctional characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. They may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to a combination of the two. Ultimately, a design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structure or functionality. Trade dress is a type of trademark that refers to the image and overall appearance of a product. Trademarks protect brands and the goodwill associated with the brand. A trademark is used to identify the source of goods or services and is used to distinguish the goods and services of one seller or provider from another. Trade dress can include product packaging, product shape and color, and the look and feel of a restaurant or retail store.

Recent decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding damages available in design patent cases highlight the court’s divergence from its damages jurisprudence in the utility patent context – specifically, the lack of an apportionment requirement between patented and unpatented portions of an infringing product. While this may make design patents increasingly desirable, the Supreme Court’s decision to review the issue now raises the possibility that the discrepancy will be resolved.

The Court held that the district court must review the design disclosed in the patent as a whole, and consider whether functional elements contributed to the ornamentation of the design. Although a design patent protects ornamental features rather than functional features, the claims are not limited solely to ornamental elements. The combination of form and function to achieve an ornamental result is within the scope of a design patent. This is particularly true given that design patents are statutorily permitted to cover “articles of manufacture” which almost always serve a functional purpose. Because design patents “protect the overall ornamentation of a design, not an aggregation of separable elements,” eliminating individual elements of the design from consideration was found to be improper, and the Court remanded for further proceedings.

On Monday, March 21, 2016, the United States Supreme Court accepted certiorari in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, Inc., which relates to how much Samsung owes for infringing Apple design patents. The question accepted by the Supreme Court is: “Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?”

The victory, if it stands, will encourage more design patent infringement claims, and Apple will likely find itself defending against similar suits in the not so distant future. On December 14, Samsung filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear an appeal in the case. Given the economics of future litigation, Apple might quietly hope that the Court takes the opportunity to articulate the appropriate standard for awarding total profit damages for infringement.

Future Motion launched a successful Kickstarter campaign to fund the earliest prototypes of the OneWheel on January 6th, 2014. Within 24 hours, the project had already collected 40 percent of the funds it needed for the next phase of development. Within three days, it had secured 85 percent of its funding request and it only took a total of four days to reach the $100,000 pledge goal that Future Motion had initially set out to achieve. All told, Future Motion received a total in excess of $630,000 within 25 days and was able to meet stretch goals for LED lighting systems and mobile app development.