-
Recent Posts
- Board reexamination decision vacated and remanded for reconsideration of its analogous art analysis (“reasonably pertinent”)
- Board construction of “wherein” clause affirmed; remanded for review of non-instituted grounds
- Fed. Cir. finds APJ’s overseeing IPRs to be unconstitutionally appointed, but suggests remedy
- Board PGR obviousness decision vacated for disregarding evidence of copying as irrelevant
- HCV method of treatment claims invalid for lack of enablement and written description
Recent Comments
Categories
- America Invents Act
- Analgous Art
- Anticipation (35 USC 102)
- Antitrust
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Article III disputes
- Assignment / Ownership
- Attorney's Fees
- Bankruptcy
- Best mode
- Biosimilars
- Business methods
- Certificate of Correction
- Claim
- Claim Construction
- Claim Differentiation
- Claim Preclusion
- Claim Vitiation
- Collateral estoppel
- Conception and Reduction to Practice
- Contributory Infringement
- Copyright
- Covered Business Method Reviews
- Damages
- Derivation of Invention
- Design Patents
- Diligence
- Disclaimers
- Discovery
- Doctrine of equivalents
- Double Patenting
- Enablement
- Equitable estoppel
- Exhaustion and Repair
- Experimental Use
- Expert Testimony
- False Marking
- Functional limitations
- Generics / ANDA
- Importation
- Indefiniteness
- Inducement to Infringe
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Inherency
- Injunction
- Inter Parties Review (IPR)
- Interference
- International Trade Commission
- Inventorship
- IPR
- Issue Preclusion
- Jurisdiction
- Laches
- Licensing
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Means-plus-function
- Method claims
- Negative Limitations
- Obviousness
- Obviousness-Teaching Away
- On-Sale Bar
- Patent Eligibility (101)
- Patent Exhaustion
- Patent Marking
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentability
- Post-grant review
- Preamble
- Priority
- Privilege
- Procedural Issues
- Product-by-Process
- Prosecution History Estoppel
- Public Accessibility
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Royalties
- Section 101 (see also Patentability)
- Software
- Summary Judgment
- Trade Dress
- Trade Secret
- Trademarks
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
- Unenforceability
- Unjust enrichment
- Utility
- Venue
- Wherein
- Willfullness
- Written description
Archives
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Meta
- America Invents Act Anticipation (35 USC 102) Appeal Article III disputes Assignment / Ownership Attorney's Fees Claim Construction Claim Differentiation Collateral estoppel Damages Doctrine of equivalents Generics / ANDA Indefiniteness Inducement to Infringe Infringement Injunction Inter Parties Review (IPR) Inventorship IPR Means-plus-function Obviousness Obviousness-Teaching Away Patentability Prosecution History Estoppel Reexamination Software Trademarks Uncategorized Willfullness Written description
Copyright Notice
© Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. and lifescienceip.wordpress.com, [2011-2017]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D. and lifescienceip.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Category Archives: Design Patents
PTAB design patent IPR decision vacated-in-part due to “ever-so-slight differences in design, in light of the overall similarities”
Campbell Soup Co. et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2029, -2030 (IPR2017-00091, -00094) PROST, NEWMAN, MOORE September 26, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB’s design patent IPR decision vacated-in-part and affirmed-in-part (i.e., Lintz is a proper primary reference and Samways … Continue reading
Posted in Claim Construction, Design Patents, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Pattern illustrated in design patent limited to chairs due to prosecution history
Curver Luxemborg, SARL v. Home Expressions, Inc. Docket No. 2018-2214 CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL September 12, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding that Curver’s design patent claim limited the patent to chairs affirmed. Summary: Curver appealed DC grant of HE’s motion to … Continue reading
Posted in Design Patents, Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Ford’s hood and headlamp design patents valid design subject matter and not exhausted by sale of Ford F-150 truck
Automotive Body Parts Association v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC Docket No. 2018-1613 Hughes, Scholl, Stoll July 23, 2019 Brief Summary: DC decision that Ford’s hood and headlamp design patents are not “primarily functional” designs and not unenforceable under doctrines of … Continue reading
Federal Circuit affirms Board IPR decision invalidating design patents for obviousness
Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc. Docket No. 2018-1259-60 (IPR2016-00816, -00826) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN July 2, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR decision of invalidity of Kolcraft’s design patents affirmed as evidence regarding inventor’s date of conception was uncorroborated. … Continue reading
In Re: Ron Maatita
Docket No. 2017-2037 DYK, REYNA, STOLL August 20, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s affirmance of the design patent examiner’s rejection of claim “as non-enabled and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it used a single, two-dimensional plan-view drawing” reversed. Summary: … Continue reading
Posted in Design Patents
Leave a comment
Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., Ltd. et al.
Docket No. 2017-1314 NEWMAN, CELVENGER, CHEN August 1, 2018 Brief summary: DC’s dismissal of Advantek’s design patent infringement complaint reversed since, e.g., “a design patent may be for a component of a product” (“damages based on the value of the … Continue reading
Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company
Docket No. 2015-1553 MOORE, HUGHES, STOLL April 19, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction rejected “because it eliminates whole aspects of the claimed design”. DC exclusion of expert witness found not to be an abuse of discretion because of his … Continue reading
