Remove Designs Remove Patent Infringement Remove Patent Law Remove Technology
article thumbnail

New Developments in Korean Patent Law

LexBlog IP

Navigating Korean Patent Law Changes: Accelerated Examination, PTEs, and Court Decisions @media screen and (max-width: 1023px) {.thegem-vc-text.thegem-custom-642e0f5b9c76d4054{display: Additionally, changes to the criminal law provisions prosecute both design and utility patent infringement.

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. To be patentable, however, both designs and functional inventions must satisfy two requirements. Telflex, Inc.,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court on Patent Law: November 2023

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch The Supreme Court is set to consider several significant patent law petitions addressing a range of issues from the application of obviousness standards, challenges to PTAB procedures, interpretation of joinder time limits IPR, to the proper scope patent eligibility doctrine. Hamilton Technologies (No.

article thumbnail

District Court Finds Use of a Method to Manufacture a Product Does Not Indirectly Infringe a Patented Method to Design A Product

The IP Law Blog

Omnivision Technologies, Inc. , Kronstadt), the Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s indirect patent infringement claims for failure to sufficiently allege Defendant “made” the accused product. In Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. 8-22-cv-01979 (CDCA Mar. 1, 2023)( John A.

Designs 98
article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently-O

20-891 (CVSG requested May 3, 2021); Res Judicata and the Patent-Specific Kessler Doctrine : PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. 20-1394 (CVSG requested October 4, 2021); Undermining Jury Decisions : Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Three other eligibility cases are pending: PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, v. VLSI Technology LLC.

article thumbnail

Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on IPR: Tipping the Scales of Patent Law? Part II

SpicyIP

The Report recommends that instead of completely abandoning patent applications for non-compliance with minor procedural/timeline requirements, penalties or fees should be imposed to induce some flexibility in the process. Lastly, the recommendation on improving the Patent Office website is a much welcome suggestion.

Reporting 136
article thumbnail

Dastar bars false advertising claim against "first of its kind" ads

43(B)log

Dastar explicitly stated that the Lanham Act “does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device” and that the Act’s “common law foundations. were not designed to protect originality or creativity.” “Yet Zobmondo Ent. Imagination Int’l Corp., CV 09-02235 ABC PLAX, 2009 WL 8714439, at *1 (C.D.