article thumbnail

Obviousness Test for Design Patents Unchanged

The IP Law Blog

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. Utility patents protect four categories of functional inventions: machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter, and processes (methods).

article thumbnail

Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor in TSM-Based Non-Obviousness Determination?

SpicyIP

By Kevin Preji On 28th Feb, 2024, the Delhi High Court in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in allowing an appeal, clarified the role of the ‘person skilled in the art’ (‘PSITA’) in determining non-obviousness. The patent office issued a first examination report in June 2019, (7 years later!)

Invention 111
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

Obviousness Test for Design Patents Unchanged

LexBlog IP

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. Utility patents protect four categories of functional inventions: machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter, and processes (methods).

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit to Decide Whether KSR Applies to Design Patents

LexBlog IP

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. Operations LLC. [1]

article thumbnail

Obviousness: Is a Reasonable Expectation of Success Sufficient

Patently-O

Vanda sued, but lost on obviousness grounds — with the court holding that the claimed combination was obvious because it was directed to a set of known elements and a person of ordinary skill would have a “reasonable expectation of success” in reaching the resulting invention. NAPP Amicus Brief. Greenwood , 52 U.S. (11

article thumbnail

Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness

Patently-O

While these new guidelines are not legally binding, they offer important insight into how the Office plans to apply an even more flexible approach to obviousness — something Director Vidal sees as mandated by the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR Int’l Co. 398 (2007). Teleflex Inc. , 2500 words). Read the Guidance Here.

Art 120
article thumbnail

Within The Scope of This Concise Analysis, the Case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd. Is Investigated

IP and Legal Filings

In year 2007 the plaintiffs (Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Utilizing the invention or technology outlined in the patents owned by the plaintiffs; and 2.The However, in 2007, the Respondent made the decision to submit a revocation petition to the IPAB for the first time. and the state of Maharashtra filed a lawsuit in the Madras High Court.