Remove Art Remove Patent Application Remove Patent Infringement Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

The Scope of Comparison Prior Art in Design Patent Infringement

Patently-O

2022) raises a number of important design patent law questions, including an issue of first-impression of the scope of “comparison prior art” available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis under Egyptian Goddess, Inc. The prior art is used to help measure the scope of the claims.

article thumbnail

Patent Law Exam 2023: Are you Smarter than a Law Student?

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The following is my patent law exam from this past semester. After talking again with Jane, EL decided to patent the device. He initially filed a provisional patent application in June 2020. The non-provisional patent application included the following two claims: 1. Question 3.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

The Legacy of A.B. Dick and Motion Picture Patents: How these 100+ Year Old Ruling Reshaped Patent Law

Patently-O

Third party ink seller Sidney Henry sold ink to a buyer of the machine, despite knowing of the restriction, and was sued for contributory patent infringement. Lexmark argued that these restrictions should be enforceable through patent law, similar to the reasoning in A.B. ” quoting Motion Picture Patents.

article thumbnail

Smart Wallets and Measuring Credibility of the Prior Art

Patently-O

In 2020, Storus (AKA “Mosaic Brands”) sued Ridge Wallet for both patent infringement (US7334616) and product-design trade dress misappropriation. Ridge counterclaimed with its own patent infringement contentions (US10791808, Fig 11 shown above). Is it Prior Art? Ridge Wallet LLC , — F.4th

Art 124
article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Requires Prior Art Be Analogous for Anticipation of Design Patents

IP Intelligence

Specifically, if an ordinary observer would find the accused product to be “substantially the same” as the claimed design, there is infringement. [4]. On top of these benefits, the Federal Circuit recently provided another benefit to design patent applicants. The In re Surgisil opinion squarely rejects this 60-year-old rule.

article thumbnail

Attorney Fees Denied Due to Lack of Support in Cannabis Litigation Record

The IP Law Blog

Pure Hemp also alleged the district court erred in not awarding attorney fees because of alleged inequitable conduct by the patent applicant. The patent prosecutor argued the copied portions consisted of background information, making the prior art not material to the applications.

article thumbnail

De Forest Radio v. GE: A Landmark Supreme Court Decision on the Invention Requirement

Patently-O

By Dennis Crouch In 1931, the United States Supreme Court decided a landmark case on the patentability of inventions, De Forest Radio Co. The case involved a patent infringement suit over an improved vacuum tube used in radio communications. Background The patent at issue, U.S. General Electric Co. , 571 (1931).