D164,783 - issued in 1951 for a design for a "personalized wedding anniversary candle." #DesignPatents

nostr:npub1rp86x9dlxdrvtastccv3txnkqvrklr0swypfgpnx5s0hc55eugvq9w5fqa Yikes

nostr:npub1swyxvkhew2qcjpgmsf7c4salsxsedx4veavatjd5yzhxhmtk58aq54snpj This makes me so, so sad. Like her decisions or not, Judge Newman has been a lion of our profession (in an area with still far too few women) for a very long time. I hate to see all of this.

nostr:npub1synvpgcecx7mshxrnvhad3e9xxeclecnqj36u7wk0eu7n3gsvxgqq7nw0w I have no reason so suspect that anyone here is acting in bad faith, if that's what you're suggesting.

From the Report & Recommendation: "For the reasons explained below, the Committee finds that Judge Newman has not shown good cause for refusing to cooperate with the Committee's orders and that her failure to cooperate constitutes misconduct under Rule 4(a)(5)."

https://cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/JudicialMisconductOrders/July%2031,%202023%20Report%20and%20Recommendation.pdf

Breaking news, via Law360: "A Federal Circuit panel investigating claims that 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman is not mentally fit to remain on the bench has recommended that she be suspended from hearing all cases for one year for not cooperating with the probe."

Full story (if you have access): https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1707721?nl_pk=fd062d42-234e-4b6a-b9b5-4052fd7ef7ac

Full report & recommendation (direct from the court): https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDEsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vY2FmYy51c2NvdXJ0cy5nb3Yvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzL0p1ZGljaWFsTWlzY29uZHVjdE9yZGVycy9KdWx5JTIwMzEsJTIwMjAyMyUyMFJlcG9ydCUyMGFuZCUyMFJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9uLnBkZiIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMzA4MDQuODA2NTY2NjEifQ.8_e05XAbC9WtRy18eLNTnjSRpUwmd8Omh6yTW_gzkWY/s/2596171365/br/223716549272-l

#LawFedi #PatentFedi #FederalCircuit #JudgeNewman

"Reverse the loss"?!?

https://wapo.st/3qj1Gef

We can absolutely not accept this kind of nonsense.

MED v. Impresa - New design patent case over "products used to treat chronic thumb sucking" https://design-law.tumblr.com/post/724630206094114816/does-this-thumb-sucking-prevention-device-infringe

This raises interesting issues about the use of interior broken lines. What, exactly, do they mean there? This matters not just because of the differently-shaped holes on the thumb-covering portion but also because the accused product has a hole where the claimed design has a solid surface.

#DesignPatents #BrokenLines #PatentFedi

Des. 420,853 - issued in 2000 for a design for an "alien drinking vessel." #DesignPatents

nostr:npub13rsxtjsqz39ymve0gymtm58432pds0g0u57yr5atx46fadle2nxqs4ezvv https://mastodon.social/@design_law/110798436117784723

Note that if, as is usual in these cases, the claimed products had been filed under seal, then we the public would have no idea how bad these infringement claims are.

Okay, so, if:

- The purported basis for #ScheduleA asset freezes is that they're allowed (under Grupo Mexicano) where disgorgement is at issue,

- And a plaintiff doesn't include § 289 in their prayer for relief (i.e., where the operative complaint seeks only legal monetary remedies),

- Then, even under this theory, such plaintiffs shouldn't be entitled to asset freezes, right?

#Remedies #DesignPatents

Okay, so, if:

- The purported basis for #ScheduleA asset freezes is that they're allowed (under Grupo Mexicano) where disgorgement is at issue,

- And a plaintiff doesn't include § 289 in their prayer for relief (i.e., where the operative complaint seeks only legal monetary remedies),

- That plaintiff shouldn't be entitled to asset freezes, right?

#Remedies #DesignPatents

Okay, so, if:

- The purported basis for #ScheduleA asset freezes is that they're allowed (under Grupo Mexicano) where disgorgement is at issue,

- And a plaintiff doesn't include § 289 in their prayer for relief,

- They shouldn't be entitled to asset freezes, right?

#Remedies #DesignPatents

nostr:npub1asaptquvrmcgc3cam0e7usuafxrersj7q0tmnav62xy4ph8ygnhqjxkevp Yes, I was just thinking about that absolute classic. I do miss having the platform I used to have to combat disinformation, is all.

The last time a reporter published a credulous Schedule A story, I reached out to them privately to ask if they knew that model was controversial. They responded saying that they didn't and that they regretted being so credulous.

So I tried with the guy yesterday and he was just like "my story didn't SAY there's no good reason Ds don't show up!!"

No, dude, you just said they "never bother to show up at court." 🙄

So, I stopped decided to stop actively posting on the Bad Site in November and have generally not been tempted to depart from that policy.

But I just saw Bloomberg Law's awful tweet about its no-good, very bad Schedule A article and I am SORELY TEMPTED.

Me reading this argument: "What kind of Trump-lawyer logic is this?!?"

D247,318 - issued in 1978 for a design for a "Bird Coffin." #DesignPatents

Des. 164,764 - issued in 1951 for a design for a design for a "salt shaker or the like." #DesignPatents