AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Kidon IP War Stories – David Cohen & Dragos Vilau
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
What's New on China's Punitive Damages in IP Litigation?
The Federal Circuit overturned its 42-year-old obviousness test for designs. Fashion companies, take note. The shape of a handbag, the red sole of a shoe: for fashion companies, design patents have long played a role in...more
One month after the Federal Circuit altered the obviousness standard for design patents in a much-anticipated en banc decision in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, an Arizona federal judge in Cozy...more
Those following this blog knew change was coming to design patent obviousness in the LKQ v. GM decision by the en banc Federal Circuit. In its May 21, 2024 decision, the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test...more
Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more
Upending decades of continuity in the world of design patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturned the...more
Before Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
Now a more flexible Graham v. John Deere analysis applies. On May 21, 2024, the en banc Federal Circuit overruled the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, holding that Supreme Court law dictates "a more...more
The en banc Federal Circuit has overruled the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, holding that the Supreme Court’s KSR decision dictated “a more flexible approach . . . for determining non-obviousness.” LKQ v....more
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Lindsey Laurain, Appeal Nos. 2022-1905, -1970 (Fed. Cir. Apr.12, 2024) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s bench trial decision that unclean hands...more
In 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued three opinions regarding U.S. design patents. The three 2023 opinions are Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., LKQ...more
Changes to design patent validity law may be coming thanks to LKQ v. GM, a case that we’ve been tracking since April 2021. On February 5, 2024, in a rare en banc hearing, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit asked...more
As we have previously written about, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has granted a petition for an en banc rehearing of LKQ Corp. et al v. GM Global Technology to rule on the...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently narrowed the scope of “comparison prior art” that may be used in a design patent infringement analysis. “Comparison prior art” includes references used to help highlight...more
The technical problem actually solved by an invention should be determined based on distinguishing technical feature of the claims as compared with the most-related prior art and the technical effect can be known by a person...more
In Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement...more
When the text, graphics, colors and arrangement and combinations attached to the goods or their packaging can distinguish the source of the goods, it constitutes the packaging and decoration with certain influence protected...more
Summary of the judgment - The defendant’s use of the picture of the tyre GST67 in its product brochure without the plaintiff’s permission during the validity term of the plaintiff’s patent constituted the act of offering...more
Legal basis of the judgment - Article 11 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Infringement of Patent Rights gives the basic...more
In the event that the design of an allegedly infringing product is not identical to a prior design, in order to reach a correct determination on design patent infringement, a comprehensive judgment should be based on...more
Judgment Gist - Customary design is a prior design that is well known by the general consumers and can be recalled by the general consumers upon merely mentioning of the product name. When mentioning beauty roller...more
A patent does not give the owner the right to do anything. Rather, it gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the claimed invention, which most...more
In a much-anticipated opinion that addresses an issue of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of “comparison prior art”―prior art considered by the fact finder during an...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that “comparison prior art” used in infringement analysis in a design patent infringement must be applied to the same “article of manufacture” that is identified in the claim of the design...more
Addressing a matter of first impression concerning the scope of prior art relevant to a design patent infringement analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that “to qualify as comparison prior art,...more
Last week, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) clarified the law on comparison prior art in design patent cases. In the decision, captioned Columbia Sportswear...more