Happy weekend, friends! What are we reading, watching, listening to, or playing for fun (or distraction)?

D159,342 - issued to Jo Emmett Jennings in 1950 for a design for a "vacuum condenser." #DesignPatents #InReJennings

Too many things going on this week. Can all you courts just, like, slow down a bit?

And the underlying decision (by Judge Seeger): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422932/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422932.51.0.pdf

"The Court declines the request to award profits because Plaintiff offered evidence of revenue, not profits. Revenue and profits are not the same thing. The Court declines the invitation to assume that all of the revenue equals profits."

#ScheduleA

And the underlying decision (by Judge Seeger): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422932/gov.uscourts.ilnd.422932.51.0.pdf

Anyway, the oral argument recording is here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.23-2948.23-2948_05_23_2024.mp3 #DysonVersusDavid7Store

Judge below was Seeger:

I'm not saying that's a good argument. Only that it's strongest in Lanham Act cases.

Oh, this is potentially big. Dyson denied profits in a trademark #ScheduleA case. At oral argument, two judges "pushed back on the notion that [Dyson] was at all entitled to a profits award in the case."

https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1840545?nl_pk=2e71aa9c-c8f8-43ff-9d5a-fafec61b2085

Of course, oral arguments can mislead as to the way a case will ultimately go.

But if the panel goes against Dyson/GBC, that would be a big deal.

11) Overall: Don't hate it.

Frankly, this passage seems like a tacit admission of what I've argued for over a decade: It's the Federal Circuit's *application of* Rosen that's the problem, not Rosen itself.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1926162

For those who don't know: The Federal Circuit has had exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals since 1982. SCOTUS has not weighed in on this issue.

For those who don't know: The Federal Circuit has had exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals since 1982. SCOTUS has not weighed in.

Background: The Federal Circuit's predecessor court, the CCPA, created the Rosen reference and "so related" requirements.

So the Federal Circuit is basically:

Thinking about the use of the passive voice in this passage from #LKQvGM:

11) The passive voice here:

LKQ is actually a good example to use on the question of "how close is too close?" If these references aren't enough to anticipate, that chair is definitely not close enough to infringe. http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2348.OPINION.5-21-2024_2321050.pdf

#DesignPatents

Nope, no infringement. Homy Casa Limited v. Jili Creation Technology Co., Ltd., 2:24-cv-00763, (W.D. Pa. May 23, 2024).

#DesignPatents