The IP Law Blog

FEBRUARY 2, 2023

Design patents and utility patents are two different things. Design patents protect ornamental designs, such as the shape of a perfume bottle or the design on flatware. To be patentable, however, both designs and functional inventions must satisfy two requirements. Telflex, Inc.,

Design Patent 98

Design Patent Designs Design Patent 98

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 2, 2023

Design patents and utility patents are two different things. Design patents protect ornamental designs, such as the shape of a perfume bottle or the design on flatware. To be patentable, however, both designs and functional inventions must satisfy two requirements. Telflex, Inc.,

Design Patent 52

Design Patent Designs Design Patent 52

LexBlog IP

AUGUST 24, 2023

1] LKQ, an auto parts repair vendor for GM, successfully petitioned for inter partes review of GM’s design patent for a front fender design, [2] arguing it was anticipated by a prior art reference (Lain) and obvious over Lian alone or in combination with a brochure for the 2010 Hyundai Tucson. 1727 (2007).

Design Patent 52

Design Patent Designs Design Patent 52

Intepat

MAY 28, 2024

Apple has become one of the largest companies globally due to its strategic use of intellectual property rights. This success is largely attributed to Apple’s effective trademarking of various designs and sounds related to its products and services. Notably, Apple trademarked its store design in the United States in 2011.

Trademark 52

Trademark Intellectual Property Branding Brands 52

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Design Patent No. D450,839 (the D‘839 Patent) for a catheter introducer sheath. Under the on-sale bar, both design and utility patents will be invalid where “the invention was. on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.”

Patent 52

Patent Invention Designs Design 52

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 2, 2024

GM Global Technology to rule on the issue of whether the current test for determining obviousness of design patents, i.e., the Rosen/Durling Standard, is proper in view of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR v. Teleflex , 550 U.S. Hunter Mfg., 3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. In contrast to the Rosen/Durling Standard, the U.S.

Design Patent 52

Design Patent Designs Design Patent 52

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 3, 2023

When Design Within Reach started, it said in its 2007 10K: “our competitors believe they have exclusive rights” in some of their proudcts, including some of their best selling items, which were reproductions. and design patents were hard to get/not as valuable at the time. In the 1960s, preemption was big (Sears v.

Designs 59

Designs Design Design Patent Branding 59