In re SurgiSil, LLP
A design claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim.
Results for design patent
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp, LLC., Ja-Ru, Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc.
In determining design patent and copyright infringement, the ornamental features and functionality of the claimed design must be distinct from the prior art and must be viewed independently of one another.
In re Owens.
“Unclaimed boundary” lines in continuation application for design patent, which indicate that applicant has disclaimed portion beyond boundary while claiming area within it, typically should satisfy written description requirement only if lines make explicit boundary that already exists, but was unclaimed, in original disclosure.
PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc.
To defeat a motion for a preliminary injunction on the issue of potential invalidity in an infringement action, the accused infringing party must present evidence sufficient to raise a substantial question of invalidity. Regarding a design patent, such evidence includes evidence of the overall functionality of the design.
Furthermore, in order to consider the availability of alternative designs as a factor that proves the validity of a design patent, an affirmative finding that the alternative designs will not affect the utility of the article must be explicitly made if the accused infringing party has presented evidence to the contrary.
Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner International, LLC
When determining whether a design infringes a design patent, a point of novelty is not formed by a combination of old elements if so many old elements are combined in the point of novelty that they capture the overall appearance of the design.
Racing Strollers Inc. v. TRI Industries Inc.
An application for a design patent filed as a division of an earlier filed application for a utility patent is entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date of the utility application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 35 U.S.C. § 121.