Mobile Devices. Elisabeth Fink Boards of Appeal, OHIM Patrice de Candé General Partner of de Candé-Blanchard Chris Carani McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Patents Under U.S. Law © 2006 David W. Opderbeck.
Advertisements

Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley Chapter 2 Introduction to XHTML Programming the World Wide Web Fourth edition.
1 WORKING WITH 2007 WORD Part 1 Developed October 2007 with lots of help from.
Feichter_DPG-SYKL03_Bild-01. Feichter_DPG-SYKL03_Bild-02.
Copyright © 2003 Pearson Education, Inc. Slide 1 Computer Systems Organization & Architecture Chapters 8-12 John D. Carpinelli.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Extended Learning Module D (Office 2007 Version) Decision Analysis.
Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 6 Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley.
Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley
1 Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Appendix 01.
Properties Use, share, or modify this drill on mathematic properties. There is too much material for a single class, so you’ll have to select for your.
Chapter 1 Image Slides Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
Getting there in comfort
The Manual concerning the Examination of Design Invalidity Applications 11th Liaison Meeting on Designs Alicante 19 November 2012 Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral,
1 RA I Sub-Regional Training Seminar on CLIMAT&CLIMAT TEMP Reporting Casablanca, Morocco, 20 – 22 December 2005 Status of observing programmes in RA I.
Microsoft Access 2007 Advanced Level. © Cheltenham Courseware Pty. Ltd. Slide No 2 Forms Customisation.
Multiplying binomials You will have 20 seconds to answer each of the following multiplication problems. If you get hung up, go to the next problem when.
Photo Slideshow Instructions (delete before presenting or this page will show when slideshow loops) 1.Set PowerPoint to work in Outline. View/Normal click.
REVIEW: Arthropod ID. 1. Name the subphylum. 2. Name the subphylum. 3. Name the order.
Break Time Remaining 10:00.
This module: Telling the time
KARACHI FASHION WEEK CHAPTER 3 JANUARY 27 – 30, 2011 FASHION RUNWAY SHOW FASHION RUNWAY SHOW BRAND PRESENTATIONS BRAND PRESENTATIONS FASHION BRANDS EXHIBITIONS.
Turing Machines.
Bright Futures Guidelines Priorities and Screening Tables
EIS Bridge Tool and Staging Tables September 1, 2009 Instructor: Way Poteat Slide: 1.
Physical Aspects [Reflection Modelling] Hauptseminar: Augmented Reality for Driving Assistance in Cars.
Microsoft Office Word is an example of ____ software. a. Database b
The challenge ahead: Ocean Predictions in the Arctic Region Lars Petter Røed * Presented at the OPNet Workshop May 2008, Geilo, Norway * Also affiliated.
Design Case Law of the Court of Justice. Dr. Catherine Jenewein Former Legal Secretary to Judge Azizi, General Court, Court of Justice of the European.
Design Case Law of the Court of Justice.
Benchmark Series Microsoft Excel 2013 Level 2
COMPUTER INTERFACES.
Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge18/20/ Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge8/20/2014.
1..
CONTROL VISION Set-up. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 5 Step 4.
Skills for Success with Microsoft® Office 2010
Turnham Green Tube South Parade Bath Road Toilet Facilities in Church Hall Large Vehicle access just prior.
1 Using one or more of your senses to gather information.
: 3 00.
5 minutes.
Analyzing Genes and Genomes
Essential Cell Biology
Clock will move after 1 minute
PSSA Preparation.
Essential Cell Biology
A lesson approach © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. a lesson approach Microsoft® PowerPoint 2010 © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Energy Generation in Mitochondria and Chlorplasts
Select a time to count down from the clock above
Murach’s OS/390 and z/OS JCLChapter 16, Slide 1 © 2002, Mike Murach & Associates, Inc.
Benchmark Series Microsoft Excel 2013 Level 2
Teacher Evaluation System LSKD Site Administrator Training August 6, 2014.
Engineering Graphics I
Chapter 12 Pictorial Drawings.
Mirror Worlds v. Apple. In 2008, the technology company Mirror Worlds, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement in the US District Court.
Patent Law and Policy University of Oregon Law School Fall 2009 Elizabeth Tedesco Milesnick Patent Law and Policy, Fall 2009 Class 11, Slide 1.
Renaissance of U.S. Design Patents Steven M. Gruskin Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, D.C. PLI Seminar, New York City January 31,
US DESIGN PATENT LAW UPDATE John T. Johnson, Esq. January 29, 2013 Tampa, Florida AIPLA 1.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Would the Federal Circuit Rebuff Egyptian Goddess’ “Non-trivial Advance[s]”? Ranga Sourirajan,
® ® From Invention to Start-Up Seminar Series University of Washington The Legal Side of Things Invention Protection Gary S. Kindness Christensen O’Connor.
European Patent Applicants Filing in China Common Mistakes Zheng Li Zhongzi Law Office September, 2014.
Patents Physical Property Deed Intellectual Property Deed InventionHouse.
IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL IP PROTECTION IN CROSSOVER AREAS MITCH HARRIS Mitch Harris, Attorney at Law, LLC Athens, Georgia.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of Computer.
10/13/08JEN ROBINSON - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER Claim Construction Order An order issued by the court in which the court construes the meaning of disputed.
Intellectual Property
Apple v. Samsung: Product Design
Panel III: Is one enough. Is two too many
19th Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute
Design Panel Speakers: Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens), Stefano Ferro (Bugnion), Anbar Khal (Oakley) Moderated by: Hans Mayer (Knobbe Martens) Washington.
Presentation transcript:

Mobile Devices

Elisabeth Fink Boards of Appeal, OHIM Patrice de Candé General Partner of de Candé-Blanchard Chris Carani McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd. Chair: Darren Smyth Partner in Charge, EIP Elements Practice Group

Designs for Mobile Devices US Perspective Chris Carani McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd.

Outline of Today’s Discussion 1.Dotted Lines 2.Design Corpus (i.e. Prior Art) and Infringement 3.Nature of the Product 4.Features Dictated by Technical Function

General Rule (U.S.) “Solid lines” are part of claim design.” “Dotted lines” are NOT part of claimed design.”

Dotted Lines Microsoft Webcam, US Patent D647,937 Mount is not part of claimed design

Dotted Lines Microsoft Webcam, US Patent D647,937

US D647,933 “ELECTRONIC CAMERA” US D647,946 “SUPPORT FOR ELECTRONIC CAMERA” Multiple Applications

Dotted Lines and Continuation Practice D548,744 (entire device) D573,223 (screen, no click wheel) D562,847 (no screen, click wheel)

Dotted Lines and Continuation Practice Filing 8/24/05 Filing 3/22/07 Issuance D548,744 Issuance D573,606 Filing 05/08/07 Abandoned Filing 2/13/09 Issuance D650,355 Filing 08/10/11 Issuance D656,159 Etc.

Apple’s US D593,087 has 6 Embodiments Apple D‘087 Embodiment 5 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 6 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 4 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 3 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 2 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 1 EmbodimentSpeakerScreen BorderHome Button 1Unclaimed Claimed 2UnclaimedClaimedUnclaimed 3ClaimedUnclaimed 4 Claimed 5 UnclaimedClaimed 6 Unclaimed

Importance of Dotted Lines Apple’s ‘087 Design Samsung’s Accused Galaxy 4 S Claimed Not present

Apple’s US D593,087

Importance of Dotted Lines Apple’s ‘087 Design Samsung’s Accused Galaxy 4 S Disclaimed

Design Corpus and Design Patent Infringement Set the way back machine… Gorham v White (1871)

Gorham v. White (1871)

If…“in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.”

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (2008) 1.“Is the overall appearance of the claimed patented design 2.substantially the same as 3.the overall appearance of the accused design 4.in view of the prior art?” Eye of an Ordinary Observer:

Gorham v. White (1871)

INFRINGEMENT

Gorham v. White (1871) Prior Art

Gorham v. White (1871) Prior Art NON-INFRINGEMENT

Nature of the Product US D513,395 Title: Automobile Body Accused Product Automobile

Nature of the Product US D513,395 Title: Automobile Body Accused Product Go-Cart or UTV

Nature of the Product US D513,395 Title: Automobile Body Accused Product Child’s Toy

Nature of the Product US D593,087 Title: Smartphone Accused Product Child’s Toy

Two Distinct Functionality Concepts: (1) Validity and (2) Scope of Protection Concept 1 Validity – Overall Appearance of Claimed Design. Concept 2 Scope of Protection – Appearance of Individual Features.

Concept 1: Functionality - Validity Validity Question: Is Appearance of Overall Claimed Design Dictated by Function? Patented Design 1Patented Design 2 Patented Design 3

Concept 2: Functionality – Scope of Protection Scope of Protection Question : Is Appearance of Claimed Design Feature Dictated by Function? Patented Design Accused Design

32 ‘167 Patented Design Accused Design Prior Art Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc. (2010)

33 Claim Construction – as a Matter of Law “Richardson's multi-function tool comprises several elements that are driven purely by utility. As the district court noted, elements such as the handle, the hammer-head, the jaw, and the crowbar are dictated by their functional purpose.” hammer-head jaw handle crow-bar

34 Claim Construction “Discount,” “Ignore,” “Factor out,” these features.

hammer-head jaw handle crow-bar

hammer-head jaw handle crow-bar

hammer-head jaw handle crow-bar

hammer-head jaw handle crow-bar

Claim Construction = Claim Destruction

Functionality – Scope of Protection Scope of Protection: Are there any features “dictated by function”?

Questions