USPTO-Judicial-Decisions-Review.pdf - Haynes and Boone, LLP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 112846 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2011)Comparison: Infringement!Bench trial – finding of design patent infringement.“The overall design impression and effect of the [prior art] is distinctly different from that … claimed in thePatent.” “There are minor differences … [b]ut the [1 st accused design] so nearly resembles that of the[claimed design] that an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, would be unable to easily distinguishthem in a side-by-side comparison without unusually careful effort.” (Design patentees: unite the design! )ClaimedDesign1 st AccusedDesignPrior Art© 2012 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 112846 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2011)Claimed Design2 nd Accused DesignInfringement?© 2012 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Page 1 and 2: Design Patent Judicial DecisionsA Y
Page 3 and 4: Lightning Review Design Patent Infr
Page 5 and 6: “[W]hen the claimed and accused d
Page 7 and 8: Lightning Review Design Patent Inva
Page 9 and 10: Moose Mountain Toymakers Ltd. v. Ma
Page 12 and 13: Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa M
Page 15: Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pi
Page 19 and 20: Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.
Page 21 and 22: Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.
Page 23 and 24: Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics
Page 25 and 26: Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics
Page 27 and 28: Rip-It Holdings, LLC v. Wilson Hunt
Page 29 and 30: Famosa Corp. v. Gaiam Inc.No. 11-cv
Page 31: Thank you!!!Alan Herdaalan.herda@ha

USPTO-Judicial-Decisions-Review.pdf - Haynes and Boone, LLP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?