US DESIGN PATENT LAW UPDATE John T. Johnson, Esq. January 29, 2013 Tampa, Florida AIPLA 1.

Slides:



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

Anatomy of a Patent Application Presented by: Jeong Oh Director, Office of Technology Transfer & Industrial Development Syracuse University April 30, 2009.
EACCNJ European Union IP Forum Mark DeLuca Pepper Hamilton LLP September 27, 2012.
Recent Cases on Patentable Subject Matter and Patent Exhaustion Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A. Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes.
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE A full transcript of this presentation can be found under the “Notes” Tab. Claim Interpretation: Broadest Reasonable.
Renaissance of U.S. Design Patents Steven M. Gruskin Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, D.C. PLI Seminar, New York City January 31,
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Would the Federal Circuit Rebuff Egyptian Goddess’ “Non-trivial Advance[s]”? Ranga Sourirajan,
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C. New York “Divided” or “Joint” Infringement.
In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter December 2, 2008 John King Ron Schoenbaum.
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Vs. Miguel Chan UC Berkeley IEOR 190G March 2009.
Patent Overview by Jeff Woller. Why have Patents? Patents make some people rich – but, does that seem like something the government should protect? Do.
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Applications for Intellectual Property International IP Protection IP Enforcement Protecting Software JEFFREY L. SNOW, PARTNER NATIONAL SBIR/STTR CONFERENCE.
© 2010 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox P.L.L.C. All Rights Reserved. Using the Hague System to Protect Designs Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, Esq. November 10,
® ® From Invention to Start-Up Seminar Series University of Washington The Legal Side of Things Invention Protection Gary S. Kindness Christensen O’Connor.
Patent Law Overview. Patent Policy Encourage Innovation Disclose Inventions Limited Time Only a Right to Exclude.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Hamilton Beach Brands v. Sunbeam Products: Lessons Learned Naomi Abe Voegtli IP Practice.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
35 USC 101 Update Business Methods Partnership Meeting, Spring 2008 by Robert Weinhardt Business Practice Specialist, Technology Center 3600
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating.
Overview Apple/Samsung result Utility/Design Patents – Proving design patent infringement Design patents/trademarks/copyrights Why Apple Won! Expanded.
Patent Prosecution Luncheon March White House Patent Reform: Executive Actions Draft rule to ensure patent owners accurately record and regularly.
Part F – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS (3.1): Demonstrate understanding of how internal factors interact within a business that operates in a global.
© 2011 Baker & Hostetler LLP BRAVE NEW WORLD OF PATENTS plus Case Law Updates & IP Trends ASQ Quality Peter J. Gluck, authored by.
Professor Peng  Patent Act (2008) ◦ Promulgated in 1984 ◦ Amended in 1992, 2000, and 2008.
California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: Advice for Drafting.
5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 750 Houston, TX (fax) (mobile) WHAT IN-HOUSE COUNSEL NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT IP August.
Preserving US Patent Rights in Light of §103(c) in Collaborations James Anglehart Patent Agent, Partner The purpose of this document is to provide general.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 6: Validity and Infringement 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 6 Dr. Tal.
Appeals in patent examination and opposition in Germany Karin Friehe Judge, Federal Patent Court, Munich, Germany.
Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson, P.C U.S. Patent Claims By James A. Larson.
Protecting User Interfaces By: Mike Krause. Step #1 Don’t get a job.
Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,
WIPO Global Forum Of Intellectual Property Authorities Geneva, September 17-18, 2009 Panel 5B: Industrial Design Registration Key Design.
Patent Prosecution Luncheon October Patent Document Exchange China now participating in Patent Document Exchange (PDX) program. –Effective October.
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association U.S. Implementation of the Hague Agreement For Designs John (Jack) J. Penny, V Event.
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.
Claims Proposed Rulemaking Main Purposes É Applicant Assistance to Improve Focus of Examination n Narrow scope of initial examination so the examiner is.
Mayo v. Prometheus Labs – The Backdrop June 12, 2012 © 2012, all rights reserved.
Margaret Polson Polson Intellectual Property Law, PC US Design Patents Overview.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Software Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of.
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
1 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association THE STATUS OF INDUCEMENT Japan Intellectual Property Association Tokyo Joseph A. Calvaruso.
Fundamentals of Intellectual Property
Patents and the Patenting Process Patents and the Inventor’s role in the Patenting Process.
The Court System Chapter 5. Courts  Trial Courts- two parties Plaintiff- in civil trial is the person bringing the legal action Prosecutor- in criminal.
Class 24: Finish Remedies, then Subject Matter Patent Law Spring 2007 Professor Petherbridge.
BLW 360 – January 27, 2015 Jonathan LA Phillips
© 2012 Copyright Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC William C. Rowland Fang Liu Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Introduction to Intellectual Property.
INTELECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
Intellectual Property
Preparing a Patent Application
PATENTS IT.CAN Annual Meeting
Of Counsel Polsinelli, LLP
The Spanish doctrine of equivalents after alimta®
Global Innovation Management Workout on Writing a Patent
Apple v. Samsung: Product Design
Preparing a Patent Application
Design Panel Speakers: Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens), Stefano Ferro (Bugnion), Anbar Khal (Oakley) Moderated by: Hans Mayer (Knobbe Martens) Washington.
A tutorial and update on patentable subject matter
What are the types of intellectual property?
What You Didn’t Know That You Didn’t Know About Patents
Presentation transcript:

US DESIGN PATENT LAW UPDATE John T. Johnson, Esq. January 29, 2013 Tampa, Florida AIPLA 1

US: Design v. Utility Utility Patent – Protects any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. –Protects functional characteristics Design Patent –Protects a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. –Protects appearance 2

Examples of Protectable Designs Overall product designs Partial designs and ornamentation Packaging Patterns Fonts Icons 3

US Basics Application is examined – Formalities – Novelty and Obviousness Scope of single claim determined by drawings Not published until issue Patent presumed valid 14 year term from issuance No annuities 4

Priority Claiming in US Can claim priority to an application filed in: – foreign country, which affords similar privileges; or – a WTO member country Must file US application within 6 months Recognized priority claims based on applications filed under certain agreements. For example: – Hague Agreement – Uniform Benelux Act – European Community Design 5

Maximizing Protection in the US Include multiple embodiments – Protect the idea in its various expressions – May have to argue against restriction Disclaim environmental features – Show non-critical features only in dashed line Limit drawings to design elements – Remove technical details before filing Avoid photographs 6

Example of Multiple Embodiments 7 Protect the idea in its various expressions May have to argue against restriction (or file multiple applications)

Example of Multiple Embodiments 8

Example of Amend to Disclaim 9 Show non-critical features only in dashed line

Example of Amend to Disclaim 10

Limit Drawings to Design Elements 11 Remove technical details before filing

Patentability Novelty Average Observer Test: Will the average observer take the new design for a different design, and not a modified, already-existing design? Obviousness Graham factual inquiries All claim limitations (design features) must be taught or suggested by the prior art Standard is whether the new design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill 12

Patentability 13 Study conducted by Prof Crouch in 2010 showed that only 1.2% of design patent applications received a prior art rejection ( Some say difficult it is to invalidate a design patent under law; V anguard Identification Systems v. Kappos, 407 Fed. Appx. 479 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Federal Circuit upheld validity of design patent in view of close prior art:

Developments in the field of GUIs Smartphones Tablet PCs Apps PC Software 14

Design protection available for GUIs? “Article of manufacture“ requirement 35 U.S.C Patents for designs. Whoever invents any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent Is a GUI an “article of manufacture“? (a) Manual Of Patent Examining Procedure The USPTO considers designs for computer-generated icons embodied in articles of manufacture to be statutory subject matter eligible for design patent protection… Thus, if an application claims a computer-generated icon shown on a computer screen… or a portion thereof, the claim complies with the “article of manufacture” requirement… 15

How to meet “article of manufacture“ requirement? How is “embodiment in article of manufacture“ shown? (a) Manual Of Patent Examining Procedure If the drawing does not depict a computer-generated icon embodied in a computer screen… or a portion thereof, in either solid or broken lines, reject the claimed design… for failing to comply with the article of manufacture requirement. 16

On-screen keyboard 17

18

Slide to unlock 19

20

Cover Flow 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Recommendations Make sure drawings are sufficient Limit drawings to design elements Disclaim environmental aspects (not part of the claimed design) Avoid marks, photographs (which are limiting) Many US design patents are of unnecessarily limited scope Design patents can add significant value to an IP portfolio 30

Design Patent Cases Filed in District Courts 31 Source: “Design Patent Suits Becoming Less Prevalent in U.S. Courts,” Corporate Counsel

Infringement Test Supreme Court declared that there was infringement, “if the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same.”  Rejected that design patent infringement should be decided through the eyes of a expert, leaving the decision to the “ordinary observer”  Rejected that design patent infringement required exactitude, leaving the test to requiring “substantial” identity in appearance 32

Infringement Test 2008 Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa  Affirmed that the “ordinary observer” test was the only test for determining design patent infringement  Rejected “point of novelty” test  But held that the test should be conducted “in view of the prior art.” Overall features  “The overall features of … the accused products must be compared with the patented design as a whole as depicted in all of the drawing figures to determine infringement.” 33

Claim Construction 2008 Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa Claim Construction Is Required “trial courts have a duty to conduct claim construction in design patent cases” Not Clear When and How To Do It District Court Discretion 34

Claim Construction District Court Construction Egyptian Goddess  “A hollow tubular frame of generally square cross section, where the square has sides of length S, the frame has a length of approximately 3S, and the frame has a thickness of approximately T = 0.1S; the corners of the cross section are rounded, with the outer corner of the cross section rounded on a 90 degree radius of approximately 1.25T, and the inner corner of the cross section rounded on a 90 degree radius of approximately 0.25T; and with rectangular abrasive pads of thickness T affixed to three of the sides of the frame, covering the flat portion of the sides while leaving the curved radius uncovered, with the fourth side of the frame bare.” 35

Claim Construction Discretion—But—Watch Out for Detailed Verbal Descriptions  “it is important to emphasize that a district court's decision regarding the level of detail to be used in describing the claimed design is a matter within the court's discretion, and absent a showing of prejudice, the court's decision to issue a relatively detailed claim construction will not be reversible error.... We therefore leave the question of verbal characterization of the claimed designs to the discretion of trial judges, with the proviso that as a general matter, those courts should not treat the process of claim construction as requiring a detailed verbal description of the claimed design, as would typically be true in the case of utility patents.” 36

Claim Construction Some Suggestions for District Courts  “While it may be unwise to attempt a full description of the claimed design, a court may find it helpful to point out... various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the prior art.... [A] trial court can usefully guide the finder of fact by addressing a number of other issues that bear on the scope of the claim. Those include … assessing and describing the effect of any representations that may have been made in the course of the prosecution history; and distinguishing between those features of the claimed design that are ornamental and those that are purely functional..” 37

Example Great Neck Saw Manufacturers, Inc. v. Star Asia U.S.A. LLC 38 PatentPrior ArtAccused

Example Crocs v. ITC 39 PatentPrior ArtAccused Not referenced in CAFC Decision

Example Crocs v. ITC 40 PatentPrior ArtAccused Not referenced in CAFC Decision

Example Wing Shing Products Co. Ltd. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc. 41 PatentPrior ArtAccused

Example Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe (Accused Product 1) 42 PatentPrior ArtAccused

Example Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe (Accused Product 2) 43 PatentPrior ArtAccused

PatentPrior ArtAccused Example Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa 44

PatentPrior ArtAccused Example Richardson v Stanley Works 45

Apple PatentPrior ArtAccused Apple v. Samsung 46

Apple PatentPrior ArtAccused Apple v. Samsung 47

Apple PatentPrior ArtAccused Apple v. Samsung 48

Apple PatentPrior ArtAccused Apple v. Samsung 49

Apple PatentPrior ArtAccused Apple v. Samsung 50

Apple PatentPrior ArtAccused Apple v. Samsung 51

52 Apple v. Samsung Claim Construction July 27, 2012 Claim Construction Order

Apple v. Samsung Infringement (D677) 53 Amended August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict

Apple v. Samsung Infringement (D087) 54 Amended August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict

Apple v. Samsung Infringement (D305) 55 Amended August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict

Apple v. Samsung Infringement (D889) 56 Amended August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict

Apple v. Samsung Infringement (D889) 57 Amended August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict

Apple v. Samsung Validity 58 August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict

Thank You 59