Posts Tagged: "design patents"

Branded apparel companies face many challenges in protecting their IP assets, including the unavailability of copyright protection for fashion designs, the length of time necessary to secure a design patent, the challenge of securing secondary meaning required for a trade dress claim before the market is flooded with knock-offs, and the geographic and practical impediments to pursuing counterfeiters, who are often foreign-based and/or judgment proof.  Perhaps mindful of the limited statutory protections for IP assets and the significant damages being incurred at the hands of infringers, various courts, particularly in the Second and Ninth Circuits, have in recent years taken steps to enhance the alternatives available to apparel companies confronted by the scourge of knockoffs.  Specifically, such court decisions have (1) expanded the scope of potential contributorily liable actors, and (2) broadened the means of freezing and attaching assets of foreign counterfeiters.

The Internet of Things (IoT) has been upon us for some time now, though many are just beginning to see it — the interconnected network of devices that increasingly surrounds us. We actually welcomed the first personal IoT device a while ago in the smart phone, a device whose functionality depends on its connection to a cellular network or the internet. Imagine the impact your phone has had many times over — with billions of interconnected smart devices — and you get a sense of the IoT’s expected scale… Unfortunately, protecting your IP in the IoT is likely to be both more complicated and lead to more patent infringement lawsuits than ever before.

The Apple-Samsung case has dragged on for about six years so far, with no end in sight. The first case, involving design patents, has had a trial, gone to the Federal Circuit, up to the Supreme Court, where a unanimous Court sided with Samsung. The case is now back at the district court, which has to decide which “article of manufacture” on the infringing Samsung phones includes the patented design. Apple is continuing to try to salvage its $400 million damages award by any means necessary, including effectively nullifying the Supreme Court’s decision.

Boulder, CO-based shoe manufacturer Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ:CROX) had a design patent rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The patent struck by the USPTO is U.S. Patent No. D517789. Issued in March 2006 and assigned to Crocs, it protected the ornamental design of footwear. The design patent illustrations attached to the ‘789 design patent showcase the well-known Crocs design featuring holes in the footwear material around the front of the foot and a strap behind to hold the footwear in place against a person’s heel… The Examiner refused to recognize a priority claims of earlier filed applications dating back to June 23, 2003. According to the Examiner, the shoe that is the subject of the ‘789 design patent was not adequately disclosed prior to May 28, 2004, making an earlier priority date claim impossible to recognize.

Patent trolls – as well as calls for changes to the law to prevent them – date back to at least the 1800’s. A look at their history suggests that they have more to do with fluidity in the definition of patentable subject matter than any unique feature of a particular class of inventions… A change in a fundamental definition of what comprised patentable subject matter, and that change brought a major building block of commerce into the ambit of the patent system. In the age of the sharks, the farm remained the core of the U.S. economy, driving a gold rush of new patents covering every element of the farming process. Such a rush also encourages the formation of patent thickets, as speculators scramble for any potentially protectable chunk of the market. The same phenomenon drove the development of modern tech and software patents. In the aftermath of State Street, once again the market found that the machinery that undergirded the economy was suddenly open to being patented, leading to a similar gold rush.

Instead of using claims of trademark infringement and more expensive design patent infringement (if a design patent is even obtained), one can expect manufacturers of useful articles such as apparel manufacturers and designers to rely more often upon copyright to enforce their rights against knock-offs, and to seek more copyright registrations for design features on useful articles.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has published its annual World Intellectual Property Indicators. The 2016 report dissects the macro trends associated with filing activity and registrations for 2015 in the following intellectual property areas: patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and plant varieties… The twenty-year era of growth in industrial design patent applications came to an abrupt end in 2014, with a substantial drop in applications filed by 10.2%. In 2015, these figures are back on the rise, with a 2.3% increase. The number of designs in applications also rose in 2015, with non-resident applicant designs being the primary catalyst for growth. China was the main contributor to the number of designs per application, providing half the global total.

In the calculation of design patent infringer profits, two key issues are the definition of the article of manufacture and the methodology for calculating total infringer profits… Depending upon the case, infringer profits may be based on the entire accused product or may be limited to a component of the accused product, but there is no test or guidance at this point for how to determine if the entire product is the article of manufacture or if only a component or certain components comprise the article of manufacture. Therefore, it may be prudent, depending upon the case, to calculate infringer profits based on one or more alternative assumptions as to what the article of manufacture is comprised of in the specific situation. In some cases, the design patent will cover most or all of the product in question but in other cases such as in the Apple case, it will cover only a minor portion of the product.

This page and website contain contain detailed information to help inventors on the road from invention to patent… Below are a sampling of inventor help links to specific patent and invention related information throughout our website. As you read these articles you will invariably come across links to other articles of interest, which you can and really should read. While I believe inventors should take the time to read all of the pages throughout IPWatchdog.com, I have gone through the IPWatchdog.com archives and created several “reading assignments,” which will hopefully make the task of figuring out where to start more manageable, and which will help get you started. I recommend you do them in this order (i.e., starting with Reading Assignment 1), but if you find something that you just need to know then by all means jump ahead. You can also visit our Inventor Education Archive as well.

Patents confer rights and when you have rights you have an asset that can be sold or licensed. But you will have an asset that can in some circumstances be sold or licensed even before you actually obtain a patent. Increasingly more and more companies are looking for outside ideas and inventors can and do strike deals before a patent is issued. It is true, however, that the further you are down the path toward a final solution being real the more valuable your invention will be. With this in mind, there may be instances where getting some patent protection quickly could be beneficial. This article discusses several strategies for more quickly obtaining a patent.

While engaging in a manner most likely to lead to success is critical for any company, it is even more important for toy entrepreneurs for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, all too frequently costly mistakes are made. Here are five mistakes that I see toy companies make far too often… One of the ultimate ironies is that many toy companies spend most of the time coming up with the perfect name for their company but then don’t take the necessary steps to secure that name. Usually, companies either fail to run a trademark search or wait too long to file the trademark. The best time to discover a trademark issue for your name of choice is at the outset because any conflict can easily be resolved by picking a new name; and trust me while that may not seem desirable in the long run it will save you a lot of time and money.

Apple requested that the Federal Circuit keep the case and the panel review the decision in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, while Samsung requested that the Federal Circuit remand the matter to the district court for a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit adopted neither suggestion. Instead, the Federal Circuit chose to remand the case for further proceedings, which the panel explained may or may not include a new trial on damages. Judge Koh will decide whether a new trial on damages is necessary.

For patent holders in design patent infringement cases, having multiple component design patents for any given product will help maximize the potential damage award. A multiple design patent strategy is now more important than ever. Given the ease with which design patents are obtained and the relative inexpensive cost associated with obtaining a design patent (at least when compared to the cost of obtaining a utility patent) innovators who must rely on design patent protection will almost certainly need to more strategically acquire design patents as part of a truly robust design patent portfolio building strategy.

The relatively short opinion by Supreme Court standards – just over eight pages – puts it simply: “The text resolves this case. The term ‘article of manufacture,’ as used in §289, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product.”

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple which found by a unanimous 8-0 vote that a damages award for design patent infringement may be limited to revenues attributable to a component of an article of manufacture and not the entire article itself. Tuesday’s SCOTUS decision overturns a judgment reached in May 2015 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which would have awarded nearly $400 million in damages to Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) for the infringement of three design patents by mobile devices marketed by Samsung Electronics (KRX:005930).