by Dennis Crouch
The USPTO is officially establishing a separate design patent practitioner bar with its final rule published on November 16, 2023 and effective January 2, 2024. This is an historic change that opens the door to becoming a patent practitioner to a much wider audience and will likely lend itself to further growth in this specialty area. After proposing the idea in May 2023 and receiving positive feedback, the USPTO implemented the design patent practitioner bar through its rulemaking authority under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).
Currently, a single patent bar governs registration for anyone seeking to practice before the USPTO in utility, plant, and design patent matters. Applicants must meet the fairly high scientific and technical requirements before being permitted to join the bar. Of course, ornamental design is often a different creature from utility patents. Good design is now very much ensconced within the formal education — but outside of traditional engineering and science programs. So, although these designers are often design patent inventors, they have been prohibited from becoming patent practitioners. The new rules introduces an additional path focused on visual arts credentials. To qualify, applicants need a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree in one of the following fields or an equivalent:
- Industrial design
- Product design
- Architecture
- Applied arts
- Graphic design
- Fine/studio arts
- Art teacher education
These align with degrees the USPTO currently accepts for design patent examiner roles. Equivalent design field degrees will also be accepted on a case-by-case basis.
The setup here is that the design patent practitioner bar will be separate and distinct from the patent bar.
- Regular Patent Bar: Can continue to prepare and prosecute utility, design, and plant patents.
- Design Patent Bar: Can only prepare and prosecute design patents.
Design patent bar applicants will take take and pass the existing registration exam. This critical step demonstrates knowledge of patent laws, rules, and procedures. All applicants also undergo a moral character evaluation.
I like what the USPTO has done here. I love good design, and I believe that design patent attorneys and agents can be helpful in that process in a way that circles back to increase innovation in the field.
I think the claim is too narrow.
I can’t see how this will provide any cost savings to applicants. Design patents are already very cheap, and usually have very little in the way of prosecution (except for some applications I’m currently handling). The figures are the heart of the application and Examiners can be fairly stringent when it comes to how much description an applicant can include in the specification. Where is the value-add by having a practitioner with background in industrial design, product design, architecture, applied arts, graphic design, fine/studio arts, or art teacher education prepare the application? How does it provide any benefit to the applicant?
I’m not even sure it’s another factor in the financial race to the bottom because there are already some people who charge less than $1000 for their time to prepare a design patent application.
ABSENT OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES to the US design patent system, there is no “value add-on” and the requirement for some sort of higher degree in a “design-related” field is ridiculous. A five year old can draw a design for a new cup. Any creative person can create a new “ornamental design” in seconds. I’ve created thousands and I haven’t taken an art class since middle school.
The only reason for a degree requirement that makes a little sense is that a person more experienced with design/art (as a result of schooling) may be more knowledgable about what is non-obvious because such a person will (theoretically) have more understanding of the prior art. Unfortunately the PTO doesn’t examine designs for onviousness in any meaningful way, and the case law on the obviousness of designs is a fever swamp of hot gibbberish.
Lastly, I’ll just state my view that design patents do not promote “progress” in designs. Frankly, I think it’s an absurd proposition. The “value” of ornamentation or artistic creativity is subjective. Design choices become popular or not for reasons that have nothing to do with the “novelty” or “non-obviousness” of the design, and everything to do with marketing, trendiness and (of course) basic utilitarian principles (e.g., the chair design allows me to sit comfortably without fear of tipping, I can put my drink here for a moment, and my pants aren’t being ripped when I stand up).
The EPO very recently ran up the flagpole an idea to restrict entry to the patent attorney profession to those with a STEM university degree after a minimum of FOUR years of university attendance. In Europe, bachelor degrees are awarded after 3 years of study and as of now, that’s been enough to get on the patent attorney conveyor belt.
Reaction included shrewd observations that those already qualified as patent attorneys were behind the move, motivated by forebodings of a (likely AI-related) imminent over-supply of young attorneys, itself leading to longer-term diminished earning power for those established in the profession. Pulling up the drawbridge, in other words.
Do we see this also happening, as here, in the USA?
Clearly what we need is a minimum age requirement for entry to the patent bar. 35-40 years seems about right.
… but turn around and on a newer thread call someone else ‘gramps’ …
MaxDrei,
Are you really that naive? Every State bar (so at a foundational level beyond the patent bar) has — at its core — the type of protection of its livelihood to control the number of practitioners.
Every
Single
One
This is not new.
To the extent that we have agreed previously, and still agree that shoe-horning an ornamental protection system into a utility protection system necessarily is asinine, I would agree with your post here.
ipguy – but “equity” and virtue-signaling can be achieved with taking in more of the less rigorous (think objective) training sets from academic lines.
Dontcha know that THAT is the real aim?
By the by, I attended one of our industry groups monthly sessions on DIE, and one of a certain firm’s largest activists was confessing that they could not reach DIE quota marks in the more hard-science patent practice because there simply was not enough “diversity” to be had – the firm was withdrawing from their own voluntary Mansfield program.
Clearly then, in order to continue to preach/proselytize, the “net” HAS to be made bigger to capture more of the non-hard-science and less objective-trained lemmings.
““equity” and virtue-signaling ”
Next thing you’ll be railing on how you believe that Katzenbach v. McClung (aka Ollie’s Barbeque) was wrongly decided.
PPO,
Or not.
Maybe you have a point, maybe you do not. I am just not that interested though to dig into your references.
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 26, 2023 at 5:31 am
PPO,
Or not.
Maybe you have a point, maybe you do not. I am just not that interested though to dig into your references.
Design patents are already very cheap, and usually have very little in the way of prosecution (except for some applications I’m currently handling).
Out of curiosity, what is the going rate for preparing a design patent these days:
Draftsmen fees? Attorney fees? Filing fees?
Yes, I’m too lazy to look up the filing fees, but I figured I would catch it all in one spot.
Thanks in advance!!
Since Jason (as is typical) does not like to have his published articles
commented on, I’ll address his article here.
He writes:
Too many critics to count—including academics, practitioners, legislators, and judges—have lambasted the patent eligibility framework as an unpredictable morass of confusion.
He then proceeds to describe his analysis as follows:
Yet, empirical analysis suggests that those claims of unpredictability may stand on shaky grounds. In an attempt to better understand whether judges have been able to predictably apply the doctrine, we analyzed the Federal Circuit’s entire body of 368 cases on § 101 from 2012-2022 at a more granular level than any prior study. To evaluate the level of predictability within § 101 jurisprudence, we used a multi-dimensional approach that considered: (1) whether lower tribunals are reaching the legally correct outcome (i.e., reversal rates); (2) whether lower tribunals are correctly applying existing law in each case (i.e., error rates); and (3) whether appellate judges demonstrate disagreement in applying the law (i.e., dissent rates).
The obvious flaw in his analysis is that he is comparing district court/PTAB decisions with how decisions are evaluated at the Federal Circuit level. However, that is a VERY IMPERFECT measure.
Whether the law is predictable should also look at number of issued patents (supposedly examined under 101) and see how frequently those patents are upheld under 101 or invalidated under 101. If the law was truly predictable, there would be very few issued patents invalidated under 101. Unlike 102 and 103, which can involves findings of fact involving prior art not before an examiner, nothing of consequence changes from when an examiner applies 101 to a set of claims versus when a district court judge applies 101 to a set of claims. We’ve been told that the law on 101 hasn’t changed. As such, the agency whose job it is to apply the law (that hasn’t changed) should, nearly 10 years post Alice, be able to consistently apply the law. However, it is plain as day that any patent issued today involving anything involving a computer, when asserted, is going to be challenged in court under 101 and has an excellent chance of being invalidated.
If the agency charged to issue patents under 101 cannot reliably do so nearly 10 years after the last Supreme Court case on the issue, then there is a problem with the reliability in how the law is applied.
Also, this article gives short shrift to the specific comments made by those Federal Circuit Judges, whose specific job it is to apply the law, that the law is inconsistent.
The article also ignores that the current Federal Circuit has a very strongly anti-patent bias. And considering most of the cases coming to the Federal Circuit involves decisions in which a claim is rejected/invalidated under 101, it should come as no surprise that the vast, vast majority of those decisions are affirmed.
Also, if one is to actually look at the decisions themselves, it is easy to identify decisions that cannot be reconciled with one another. This is why real lawyers believe that law cannot be applied predictably.
I’m guessing that this sort of mindless, reflexive dust-kicking capped off with a ridiculous “no true Scotsman” coda is exactly why Jason could care less about your comment.
Many attorneys have observed for years (anecdotally) that 101 is no less “unpredictable” than any other statute and in fact is very “predictable” in most cases. This paper provides good evidence for that. The evidence that the eternally-aggrieved patent maximalists will complain about 101 (and 103… and 112) regardless of its “predictability” speaks for itself.
Many attorneys have observed for years (anecdotally) that 101 is no less “unpredictable” than any other statute and in fact is very “predictable” in most cases.
So says the commentator that has a hissy fit anytime a computer-related patent is upheld by the Federal Circuit as patent eligible under 35 USC 101 or anytime a computer-related patent is issued. Interesting.
If by “interesting,” you mean, “Malcolm is being self-contradicting and showcasing his cognitive dissonance yet again” (clearly, not “interesting” in the normal use of the word), then I agree.
I am 100% in agreement. The 101 jurisprudence is a mess.
I tell clients the best thing you can do is outline a problem, show how your invention solves that problem, and ensure the solution is in the claims, but that is not a guarantee at all that your claims will be valid if a court looks at them.
There are so many cases that cannot be reconciled.
Just look at this:
This claimed technological improvement is akin to the type of non-abstract improvement we found to be patent-eligible in Finjan. In Finjan, the claims at issue recited a method of providing computer security by generating a “security profile” that identifies suspicious code that performs “potentially hostile operations.” 879 F.3d at 1303–04. Unlike traditional systems that “simply look[ed] for the presence of known viruses,” the claimed method was able to identify “potentially dangerous or unwanted operations. Id. at 1304 (emphases added). Thus, we concluded that the claimed method was directed to a “non-abstract improvement” over the prior art because it employed “a new kind of file that enable[d] a computer security system to do things it could not do before.” Id. at 1305. Here, as in Finjan, the claimed invention is also directed to a non-abstract improvement because it employs a new way of generating check data that enables the detection of persistent systematic errors in data transmissions that prior art systems were previously not equipped to detect.
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH
Doesn’t the fact that you’re looking at a patent mean it’s “new” and an improvement? By definition? Why are we conflating 101 and 102/103?
Bob: “ Doesn’t the fact that you’re looking at a patent mean it’s “new” and an improvement? By definition?”
LOL. What?
“Why are we conflating 101 and 102/103?”
There is no “conflation” and if you think there is “conflation”, it’s YOU who is confused. The reason that prior art issues turn up in eligibility analyses has been explained to you and everyone else here and elsewhere (including by the judiciary) and if you still don’t “get it” then you don’t belong in the profession. You’re a hack. A whining child. Go away. Get a l I f e.
Malcolm being Malcolm with his
A
O
O
T
W
M
I (s)
and if you still don’t “get it” then you don’t belong in the profession. You’re a hack. A whining child. Go away. Get a l I f e.
Heed your own ‘advice,’ son.
Bob, are you sure that when you tell your client that it is enough to recite in the claim the solution to a “problem”. Isn’t the game now to direct the claim to the solution to a technical problem? If you do that, you’re eligible.
But your solution might still be obvious. That gets decided under 103, but if your solved problem is not even a technical one, you don’t get past the 101 door. I don’t yet see 101/103 conflation in your citation, or anything irreconcilable with the way I see the situation.
More of the nebulous, “I-can’t-bother-with-US-practice-even-though-I-spend-SOOO-much-time-on-US-patent-blogs-but-here-where-my-EPO-Uber-Alles-spectacles-as-they-work-for-me” shilling.
Let’s not confuse PTO 101 examination handling or not with District Court 101 handling when raised. Assuming that if the PTO gave the claims a pass on 101 that the D.C. will also is obviously as lawsuit-foolhardy as assuming an IPR petitioner will not ever find better prior art than only one brief application examination search did.
Let’s not confuse PTO 101 examination handling or not with District Court 101 handling when raised.
What’s the difference? One difference is that in the USPTO, the Examiner’s get special training as to how to deal with 35 USC 101 issues. Also, they all have access to 101 quality specialists, who receive extra training to resolve 101 issues. Moreover, all of these Examiners, particularly in art units where 101 is an issue, understand that any claims that are allowed will be specifically scrutinized for compliance with 101.
Assuming that if the PTO gave the claims a pass on 101 that the D.C. will also is obviously as lawsuit-foolhardy as assuming an IPR petitioner will not ever find better prior art than only one brief application examination search did.
My legal writing professor would probably have written a big red line through this sentence and accompanied it with a couple of question marks. What was the point you were trying to make?
“Assuming that if the PTO gave the claims a pass on 101”
You have been away from prosecution for FAR too long Paul.
A pass? Really?
Those pom-poms of yours are really getting to you.
Wt,
Jason’s CV screams out Ivory TowerISM.
He barely touches ‘the sciences’ with a mere undergraduate degree in biology (no real world application), and then is fully immersed in the publish-or-perish academic group think ‘ecosystem.’
Our expectations should not be too high, given that academia has no interest in anything other than their own (LONG-captured) agenda.
Big +1.
It’s unfortunate and disappointing that Jason — and other PatentlyO contributors — are unwilling to allow for discussion of their pieces.
It provides a veneer of infallibility which no post in the wild and woolly IP field is entitled to.
“safe spaces” … (I suppose)
Next up: participation trophies.
OT, but important. The PTO Director declared “precedential” a key part of a 3/10/23 IPR decision 2021-01466 that the prior art reference patent was entitled to the priority benefit of its provisional applications in spite of the CAFC’s prior [and strange, in my view] “Dynamic Drinkware” decision, by holding that the first part of the Dynamic Drinkware analysis is limited to PRE-AIA patents:
“For the reasons discussed below, we find that, under AIA §§ 102(a)(2) and 102(d), there is no need to evaluate whether any CLAIM of a REFERENCE patent document is actually entitled to priority when applying such a reference patent as prior art.” [emphasis applied]. [I.e., no longer treating some provisional spec disclosures as date-inferior to regular application filings except in pre-AIA patents.]
yeah, I was waiting for that one to have its own thread to discuss.
Todays PatentsPostGrant blog also covers this now “..precedential PTAB decision [which] makes clear that the AIA statutory framework dispensed with this faulty claim-centric scheme.”
Instead, we get another (ham-fisted at that) ‘gee, let’s talk about eligibility’ post.
Look around – anything going down in the US government or world affairs that the Sprint Left folk do NOT want too much attention being paid to?
(hint: yes and yes)
Good.
Paul, I have a question. Suppose that the disclosure in the provisional of the Teigen reference is NOT carried forward into the Teigen specification printed and published by the USPTO. Suppose it is a paragraph deliberately “buried” in the provisional and omitted in the later non-pro fili. Is it nevertheless a good prior art reference for attacks on patentability? I read in the precedential decision that the Board ought not to be obliged to “play archaeologist with the record” so I suppose that such a buried paragraph is NOT available as basis for prior art attacks. Agreed?
The great legal point: it depends.
As you know, provisionals of their own accord are not published, and do not become prior art UNLESS they become published by way of the applicant purposefully choosing to avail themselves of the provided up-to-one-year window.
IF the applicant has so chosen to place the provisional into the proper stream of BEING prior art, then ALL of what was presented therein (keeping in mind that provisionals — of themselves — are NOT vetted for sufficiency, being NOT examined), would THEN be fair game TO BE vetted (as if the date of the earliest filing.
Caveat: I have not dug into the particular details of this case yet, so my comment is based on law as written prior to this case.
Max, I had the same thought as yours: what is the prior art date of an unclaimed novel disclosure that was only in the priority provisional application, not the patent, AND the publication date of the provisional is too late to be used as a publication reference in the PTO against an intervening date application? [Or, used in a lawsuit, assuming this PTO AIA statutory interpretation is judicially accepted.] My assumption would be only the published provisional only as of its publication date unless there was an earlier-laid-open foreign-equivalent application containing the disclosure? [But, how often would both the deletion of the disclosure and the intervening date need occur?] [I believe that most U.S. provisionals do get published, but I do not know the actual %.] I hope someone else will chip in.
“ [I believe that most U.S. provisionals do get published, but I do not know the actual %.] I hope someone else will chip in.”
This is clear error.
Provisionals are not published.
Provisionals become public when an ensuing non-provisional is filed that claims priority to the provisional.
THAT date of becoming public may in fact float (for example, it may be as late as the date of the non-provisional being granted under a non-publication request for its prosecution).
Paul – this is stuff we have talked about AND is stuff that existed way back in the day when you maintained your registration number.
and again…
Please Pardon Potential rePeat (filter nabbed yet again….)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 17, 2023 at 4:10 pm
“ [I believe that most U.S. provisionals do get published, but I do not know the actual %.] I hope someone else will chip in.”
This is clear error.
Provisionals are not published.
Provisionals become public when an ensuing non-provisional is filed that claims priority to the provisional.
THAT date of becoming public may in fact float (for example, it may be as late as the date of the non-provisional being granted under a non-publication request for its prosecution).
Paul – this is stuff we have talked about AND is stuff that existed way back in the day when you maintained your registration number.
Yes, the USPTO says it does not “publish” provisionals. But when the application claiming its priority is published, as it is in most cases,* or the patent issues, it does become publicly available on Public Pair or on request. Is there case law making the provisional application not a publication under 102/103 as of it’s publicly available date?
*[Only not published if a non-publication request is filed [and not withdrawn] which is only legal for US-only filings, and not that common.]
To add to this question of Maxes, note the MPEP 2152.02(e) discussion of the addition to 102 of the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) “catch-all” provision, which defines a new additional category of potential prior art, “otherwise available to the public.” “This “catch-all” provision permits decision makers to focus on whether the disclosure was “available to the public,” rather than on the means by which the claimed invention became available to the public” or whether a disclosure constitutes a “printed publication” The MPEP goes on to numerous list Fed. Cir. decisions on various ways in which availability of the subject matter to the public may arise, including “subject matter in a laid-open patent application or patent;” and “a document electronically posted on the Internet “…
Thank you captain obvious for repeating what I stated in view of the floating nature of just when a provisional is made public (as opposed to technically being published) – but you inserted an error in your alleging of “not that common.”
Given that you have abandoned any pretext of understanding prosecution – and that for quite some time now – you would be well advised against commenting on something that you know nothing about (several of our larger clients have in fact moved to a “non-publication request filing” as a default).
As to “ Is there case law making the provisional application not a publication under 102/103 as of it’s publicly available date?
They say there is no such thing as a d u m b question – but there goes your exception to prove the rule.
AS I STATED – the provisional material does in fact become public with the publication of the non-provisional (at whatever time that may be).
Pay attention son.
OK, anon and Paul, for convenience, let us call it “X”, the disclosure content of the provisional paragraph (filed by WT at the USPTO on date A) that is NOT carried forward into the non-pro that was filed at the USPTO on date B, which non-pro goes on to be printed by the USPTO and A-published on date C, and later issues on date D as a duly issued patent. There was no publication of X prior to date C.
Assume that X is a pertinent and specific and clear enough disclosure to destroy under 103 the patentability of all of MM’s claims. But MM has a defence. His claims are entitled to a date which is earlier than date C. Is that enough to save them from invalidation based on X?
Under the EPC, the answer is 100% certain. But under the AIA?
Fortunately, it doesn’t happen very often, that validity will turn on one particular paragraph in a provisional. But it does happen quite a lot, would you not agree, that a particular disclosure in a pro turns out to be non-enabling and so not effective as a novelty attack (even if it still works under 103).
All this might strike you as academic and of little relevance to daily practice. But watch how many priority contests between well-funded rival corporate applicants under FtF AIA there are going to be, over the coming years. The fun hasn’t really started yet. Perhaps CRISPR-cas 9 will illuminate the law in this area, if the parties don’t settle?
It is sad to try to teach you (yet again) when you absolutely refuse to try to learn the law under the US Sovereign, and are only interested in shilling the EPO-Uber-Alles position, MaxDrei.
A provisional that does not mature (and there are in fact two processes for maturing), is deemed to have never existed and will not BE prior art.
Period.
A separate act of one publishing what may have ALSO been a provisional filing is just that: a separate act.
anon, are you deliberately being obtuse, or what?
In the hypo we are engaged with, the pro DOES mature. The non-pro declares the priority of the pro, the pro that is that has within it the stray paragraph containing key disclosure X.
The whole point of the hypo is that key paragraph X is not to be found within the text of the non-pro that carries further forward the application for patent protectuion that is manifested in the filing of the pro. Everything other than paragraph X is in the non-pro, identical to the pro, just filed one year later and declaring the priority benefit of the pro. With PTO publication of the non-pro, the pro (complete with its paragraph X) gets laid open to public inspection too.
Yes, of course a pro that dies unpublished at the end of its year of pendency without being invoked in a follow-up non-pro cannot constitute prior art. Where in the world is that not the case? But we are not here discussing that banal/trivial situation, are we?
Are we on the same page now? I do hope so.
Caught in the filter:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 18, 2023 at 3:21 pm
Obtuse? – or did you simply err:
“that is NOT carried forward into the non-pro”
That is a pretty unequivocal statement, eh?
** ** **
I see where we disconnect. It is standard that the transition from pro to non-pro (the typical path) is to both claim priority and incorporate by reference – this would carry all forward.
The other path, by the way, is by direct conversion, which IS a direct carryover.
My bad on your hypo using a non-standard approach, and my overlooking the oddity.
All clear now. Thanks for clarifying. Incorporation of paragraph X by reference is the detail I had not appreciated.
Nevertheless, the question remains: what is the effective date of incorporated-by-reference paragraph X for its prior art effect on MM’S claims? Is it C, the date that X first became “available” to the public? Or is it B, the filing date of WT’s US patent application that includes X by its incorporation of it by reference? Or is it A, the date on which WT first disclosed X to the USPTO? Can you divine from the AIA which of those three dates it is because I can’t.
Jiminy, the filter is fickle (possible ‘double post’ now)…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 19, 2023 at 8:35 am
The quick answer is that the AIA did not in fact touch this subject.
That being said, it appears (caveat, I still have not dug into the immediate case’s mouthings) though that somehow the c10wns in the black robes have (re)written something not actually in the AIA.
By the by, this DOES have its tentacles in another of our past discussions: the so-called “secret” prior art syndrome, which – by way of the STILL fact that provisionals (and even non-provisionals under non-publication request) may be chosen to be abandoned and will NOT become a part of the State of the Art (for either of 102 or 103) in our Sovereign.
anon, of course an Applicant can have second thoughts and “pull” their patent application to stop it being A-published 18 months after its earliest relied-upon filing date. I assume that must be the case in every jurisdiction. The interesting question though is the extent to which A publication can “back-date” to the filing or priority date the technical teaching found in the priority document and made available to the public on the date of A-publication. Such “back-dating” can be seen as the creation of an item of “secret prior art”.
I know the answer under the EPC. I await to know what is the answer under the AIA, to this extremely basic detail of the law of patentability/patent validity, in the USA.
“can be seen as the creation of an item of “secret prior art”….
I await to know what is the answer under the AIA, to this extremely basic detail…”
I have already stated that the AIA was silent as to any aspect of the provisional—non-provisional transition. The notion of Secret Prior Art is pretty much NOT changed (unless the black robes have rewritten the law).
The US Sovereign simply has Secret Prior Art as part of our law.
It either eventually materializes, or it is as if it never existed (just like prior to the AIA).
I cannot argue with the result, but I do have questions.
Can design patent practitioners still call themselves “Patent Attorneys” under the Rules of Professional Conduct? Or can they only call themselves “Design Patent Attorneys?”
Why would a business hire in-house design patent attorneys when regular in-house patent attorneys can prepare and prosecute both utility and design patents?
Is this going to encourage patent promoters to hire more design patent practitioners?
Will there be many design patent practitioners chasing a limited amount of work, therefore making the profession unattractive financially?
Your first question is covered in the Federal Register notice.
Your second question pertains to possible ‘race to bottom’ with expansion of pool of practitioners. Certainly, clients may opt for maintaining practice with current practitioners, but (as may be to be expected), $$$ considerations will be in play.
My inclination as to your third question is: definitely yes.
Likewise yes to your fourth question.
anon if you are as you
describe spill it
A step in the right direction, to be sure.
Cue all the b#tt hurt patent attorneys who think we need to require a PhD in quantum mechanics as a requirement for the patent bar in order to protect all the solo garage inventors inventing all that disruptive technology.
IF Congress has set up Design Patent Law properly (not co-mingled with Utility Patent Law)…
THEN I would like this decision.
As the two are NOT untangled, I cannot like this decision.
Agreed. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Comments are closed.