I think this case will be transferred to LA. or Paris will be dropped as a defendant. Paris isn’t subject to venue in Washington state under 28 USC 1400(b).

Courts apply the “regular and established place of business” prong rigorously when natural persons are named as defendants in a patent case.

I had the misfortune of learning this in a trade show case where the accused infringer turned out to be a dba (individual doing business under an assumed name) and since he lived and worked in another state, the site of the infringement (the show site) was a temporary place of business.

Chris

I had not seen that previously. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think the findability of patents and references is a real problem. With the digital age I cannot understand why all of this information isn’t online, free and searchable. I think we need to rethink what we consider hidden prior art, and the IP Offices around the world need to invest in having information be findable by the masses. That would be a tremendous contribution to the advancement of technology.

-Gene

I think you are right, at least to some extent. I am sure all of this will come up if it move forward. Perhaps they are just looking for a deal and given the similarity if the deal is reasonable Paris should pay and get the rights to the patent to prevent others from encroaching.

This is very dated, but by some estimates 7 out of 10 design patents are invalid. They are very difficult to search, so they are not only weak in terms of scope but much easier to challenge. Having said that, if you have a product with a visual ornamentation and get 10 design patents covering various aspects that makes what you have quite strong. Which 3 will remain? I have seen bulk design patents effectively scare off competitors.

I personally think it was a mistake to migrate to an ordinary observer copyright standard, but since they did inventors should at least consider design patents now, particularly if it is a piece of an overall portfolio.

Cheers!

-Gene

Don’t look at what is different, look at what is the same. Clearly, the Paris Hilton shoe has many different elements not present in the design patent. The question is whether the Paris Hilton shoe incorporates what is in the design patent. Patent infringement is an all elements test, which asks whether the allegedly infringing device has taken each and every aspect of what is in a patent claim. With design patents the claim is basically “we claim what is shown in the drawings.” So does the Paris Hilton shoe take all of the design patent? I think the answer is yes, at least within the loosened design patent test that asks whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused product copied the design patent.

-Gene