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

Logos Remain Relevant: Source Confusion and Design Patent Infringement

Patently-O

This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patent infringement analysis. Still, ornamental logos found on the accused product can still be relevant as visual distractors in the process of evaluating similarities and differences between the claimed design and accused design.

article thumbnail

Hyper Bicycles, Inc. Awarded Attorney Fees in Patent Infringement Case

JD Supra Law

This Patent Law case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Fa-Hsing Lu against Hyper Bicycles, Inc. regarding two design patents Lu holds for the ornamental design of a bicycle. By: Whitcomb Selinsky, PC

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

Defending Design Patents

Patently-O

In our new paper, The Truth About Design Patents , we debunk three widely held—but incorrect—views about U.S. design patents. Taken together, these myths paint a grim picture of design patents: Half of all design patent applications are rejected. Acquiring Design Patents.

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.,

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: Maximizing Patent Term Extension(PTEs) Korea’s patent term extension (PTE) is flexible in enabling the potential for multiple extensions.

article thumbnail

"objectively baseless" patent infringement claims can constitute tortious interference/defamation

43(B)log

27, 2022) A rare tortious interference/business defamation case that results in a preliminary injunction (converted from a TRO), based on claims of patent infringement made to plaintiff’s customers. This requires that infringement claims be objectively baseless.

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. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, No.