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: NO infringement!Bench trial – no finding of design patent infringement.Claimed Design2 nd Accused DesignA infringes A,butA+B does notinfringe AAAB“The [2 nd accused design] has an added second brace and an oval below the arm rest. …The overall effect of the design with the oval below the seat, while certainly taking advantageof the graceful curves designed into the [claimed design], creates a different and distinctivelook that would not confuse the ordinary observer. Each of the individual ornamental elementsmay be almost identical in isolation, but the overall impression is aesthetically different.”Prior Art? Design Patent covering 2 nd Accused Design? “relevant but not dispositive”Accused infringers: add to the design! And apply for patents on your own designs!© 2012 Haynes and Boone, LLP
Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Cabela’s, Inc.2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 123697 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2011)Claimed DesignAccused 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 and 16: Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pi
Page 17: Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pi
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?