Category Archives: Design Patents

Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed

Posted on February 2, 2023 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

LKQ Corporation, et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC Docket No. 2022-00055 (PGR2020-00055) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1253.OPINION.1-20-2023_2066551.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, CLEVENGER, STARK January 20, 2023 Brief Summary:   Board post-grant decision finding GM’s design patent not anticipated or obvious affirmed. Summary:  LKQ appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, Obviousness, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

DC grant of no invalidity of design patent reversed due to pre-critical date offer for sale

Posted on March 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Larry K. Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., Martech Medical Products, Inc. Docket No. 2021-1649 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1649.OPINION.2-10-2022_1906548.pdf) DYK, REYNA, STOLL February 10, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding no invalidity of design patent for invalidity due to pre-critical date offer for sale … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Design Patents, On-Sale Bar | Leave a comment

Board design patent anticipation decision reversed as prior art is to an art tool while design patent claim is “limited to lip implants”

Posted on October 22, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In Re:  Surigisil, LLP et al. Docket No. 2020-1940 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1940.OPINION.10-4-2021_1843781.pdf) MOORE, NEWMAN, O’MALLEY October 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding design patent claim anticipated by art tool prior art reversed (e.g., “the claim is limited to lip implants and … Continue reading →

Posted in Design Patents, Medical Devices | Leave a comment

Obviousness of utility patent affirmed; grant of SJ of non-infringement of design patent reversed and remanded

Posted on November 15, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1329, 1331, -1728 LOURIE, MOORE, STOLL November 13, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding that Columbia’s utility patent is invalid for obviousness affirmed. DC grant of SJ that Columbia’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Design Patents, Infringement, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PTAB design patent IPR decision vacated-in-part due to “ever-so-slight differences in design, in light of the overall similarities”

Posted on October 4, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on September 18, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on July 25, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 →

Posted in Design Patents, Exhaustion and Repair, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit affirms Board IPR decision invalidating design patents for obviousness

Posted on July 3, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Design Patents, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In Re: Ron Maatita

Posted on September 3, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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.

Posted on August 6, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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 →

Posted in Damages, Design Patents, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment