article thumbnail

Supreme People’s Court of China issues first comprehensively revised judicial interpretation of anti-unfair competition law since 2007

The IPKat

There was no JI on the AUCL until 2007. JI 2020) was a minor one with only one change to the JI 2007, i.e., replacing one of the legislation’s grounds from the General Principles of the Civil Law to the Civil Code of China (See the IPKat post on the Civil Code of China here ). The subsequent JI (i.e.

Law 95
article thumbnail

Design Patent Obviousness Inquiry Is Up for Review at the CAFC

JD Supra Law

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. 398 (2007), which significantly broadened the obviousness inquiry for utility. Teleflex, 550 U.S.

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

Cranial Technologies Sues Ottobock for Infringement of Cranial Remodeling Patents

JD Supra Law

7,242,798, titled “Automatic Selection of Cranial Remodeling Device Configuration,” which issued in 2007; and U.S. 7,227,979, titled “Automatic Selection of Cranial Remodeling Device Trim Lines,” which issued in 2007. The lawsuit alleges that Ottobock’s MyCRO Band and iFab system infringe U.S. Below is an example. By: Knobbe Martens

article thumbnail

Most Cited Supreme Court Patent Cases Since 1952

Patently-O

Lots of the new learning in patent law over the past decade has focused on patent eligibility. 321 (1971) (antitrust – patent pools – waiver of defenses); MedImmune, Inc. 118 (2007) (licensee standing for declaratory judgment action); Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. 398 (2007) (obviousness); and. Genentech, Inc.,

Patent 111
article thumbnail

Uncertainty Ahead if Design Patent Obviousness Test is Abrogated by en banc CAFC

JD Supra Law

In a surprising move, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has granted a petition for rehearing en banc on the issue of whether the test for determining obviousness of design patents has been overruled by the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR v. 398 (2007). Teleflex, 550 U.S. In the case, captioned LKQ Corp.

article thumbnail

Breaking Down the USPTO’s Not-So-Obvious Obviousness Guidelines

JD Supra Law

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently updated its guidance for patent examiners and applicants in determining obviousness under 35 USC § 103, based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. 550 US 398 (2007). Teleflex Inc.,

article thumbnail

Infographic | Beer glass design patents

Olartemoure Blog

Design patents allow breweries to safeguard these elements of aesthetic distinction, securing exclusive rights to their innovative designs. Some examples of beer glasses design patents in the US: BEER GLASS US D954,504 S Inventors: Nicolas Brouillac Assignee: PEUGEOT SAVEURS Date of Patent: Jun. Date of Patent: May.