Patently-O

SEPTEMBER 17, 2023

This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patent infringement analysis. Still, ornamental logos found on the accused product can still be relevant as visual distractors in the process of evaluating similarities and differences between the claimed design and accused design.

Design Patent 72

Design Patent Patent Infringement Designs Design 72

SpicyIP

AUGUST 1, 2021

Section 11 (b) read with Rule 24B of Patents Rules, 2003 concerning patent application exam stipulates a 48-month period from the date of priority or filing of patent application within which a request for examination of the application needs to be made. Concluding Thoughts.

Reporting 136

Reporting Patent Law Patent Application Patent 136

Patently-O

APRIL 17, 2024

This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. 23 (2003), false claims about the inventorship or authorship of a product are not actionable under the Lanham Act. Crocs largely prevailed in those actions. ” Dawgs brief.

False Advertising 115

False Advertising Advertising Advertising Patent 115

Intepat

AUGUST 25, 2023

Patent applications and prosecution thereof is currently governed under the Patents Rules 2003 (2003 Rules). The 2003 Rules came in super session of the erstwhile Patents Rules, 1972 and provided an elaborate description of the filing procedure and allied actions.

Patent 52

Patent Patent Application Government Designs 52

IP and Legal Filings

MARCH 27, 2024

Introduction The main emphasis of the case pertains to accusations of patent infringement made by the defendant, as well as the subsequent pursuit of damages. The purpose of submitting the application was to mitigate the risk of patent infringement amongst the ongoing legal proceedings. 1903 RPC 225. 1906 RPC 6.

Invention 66

Invention Patent Patent Infringement Technology 66

Patently-O

SEPTEMBER 13, 2021

FRAND licensing commitments are designed to alleviate the risk that SEP holders will prevent broad adoption of a standard by asserting their patents against manufacturers of standardized products. Ericsson and HTC entered into three such licensing agreements in 2003, 2008 and 2014. Apportionment. Clark , 111 U.S. concurring).

Licensing 56

Licensing Contracts Patent Law Law 56

LexBlog IP

AUGUST 31, 2021

Ericsson made submissions to ETSI committing to grant licenses to patents that cover those standards on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). Ericsson and HTC had entered cross-license agreements in 2003, 2008 and 2014. HTC also owns 2G, 3G and 4G SEPs. per mobile device based on HTC’s actual sales. .”

Licensing 52

Licensing Contracts Law Patent Law 52