Accordingly, the fact that this denial is without prejudice is cold comfort. These defendants have already had to spend way too much time and money defending against these claims.
In case anyone else is wondering:
No, I don't select the cases I post about here to focus on the bad ones. I generally just share what I'm coming across in my daily docket tracking.
I may talk a bit more about the bad ones, to explain why they are bad.
But the truth is: There are just a lot of bad design patent infringement cases.
nostr:npub1lvu7tg5s64xvxnlvh5mjh5w6kjltcr0e6g2snu53a65tze8mf7ws463ua2 I don't select cases for egregiousness, no. I generally just share what I'm reading for my own daily research. I see lots of strikingly unmeritorious infringement claims filed in federal court--and not just in secretive #ScheduleA cases like this one.
nostr:npub1lvu7tg5s64xvxnlvh5mjh5w6kjltcr0e6g2snu53a65tze8mf7ws463ua2 By the way, this is the same judge who enjoined the infringement of an expired design patent in the #Casio case.
nostr:npub1lvu7tg5s64xvxnlvh5mjh5w6kjltcr0e6g2snu53a65tze8mf7ws463ua2 I don't select cases for egregiousness, no. I generally just share what I'm reading for my own daily research. I see lots of strikingly unmeritorious infringement claims filed in federal court--and not just in secretive #ScheduleA cases like this one.
nostr:npub1lj0vafgy8lzzudkgs4atk4f8nfxrvddx92kq3hvumn6p2p9ye5jqudl7ps Cold comfort here, honestly. These infringement claims are terrible and most (if not all) of them should have been dismissed at the pleadings stage.
And the briefs are long because there are multiple asserted patents and accused products. So the brief (quite appropriately) includes a lot of pictures. I'm honestly not sure how much more concise they could be here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154.629.0.pdf
Plus, this is all happening in the larger #ScheduleA context (see hashtag for more)
For anyone who doesn't know:
The test is not: "Is the accused design closer to the claimed design or to the closest prior art?"
It's: "Does the accused product look the same as the claimed design?"
If--and only if--the two designs are not plainly dissimilar, the factfinder can look to see whether the prior art narrows the presumptive scope of the claim.
For more on the test and how it works, with representative visual examples, see: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3338471
#DesignPatents #EgyptianGoddess
In any case, these infringement claims are not good and it's ridiculous that this case has gotten so far.
On remand, the plaintiff continues to use the wrong infringement test: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154.635.0.pdf
For anyone who doesn't know:
The test is not: "Is the accused design closer to the claimed design or to the closest prior art?"
It's: "Does the accused product look the same as the claimed design?"
If--and only if--the two designs are not plainly dissimilar, the factfinder can look to see whether the prior art narrows the presumptive scope of the claim.
For more on the test and how it works, with representative visual examples, see: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3338471
#DesignPatents #EgyptianGoddess
Some of you may recognize this as the #ScheduleA case that went up to the Federal Circuit last year:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2022/10/guest-post-about.html
#DesignPatents
On remand, the plaintiff continues to use the wrong infringement test: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154.635.0.pdf
Some of you may recognize this as the #ScheduleA case that went up to the Federal Circuit last year:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2022/10/guest-post-about.html
#DesignPatents
Judge grants a party permission to file overlength briefs. Judge doesn't set a new page limit.
Five months after the motion is fully briefed, the judge denies the motion because he thinks the briefs are too long.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154.663.0.pdf
#LawFedi
The order does not mention that this is a design patent case and that the defendants' brief is fully of pictures.
#DesignPatents
Judge grants a party permission to file overlength briefs. Judge doesn't set a new page limit.
Five months after the motion is fully briefed, the judge denies the motion because he thinks the briefs are too long.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154/gov.uscourts.ilnd.384154.663.0.pdf
#LawFedi
So, not enjoying this change to the Mastodon advanced web interface. If I wanted to follow the hashtag, I'd follow the hashtag. This huge purple button is an eyesore.
#UI #UX #Design
nostr:npub1khx67x36rsu5y2f3ruuq8crnxndmep88399l2phu50etnfcrkr6q6hgeyg That's very good news, indeed. Glad to hear it
Update: My question was completely ignored.
Panelist: Investors want to see that you can "control the market." This can "sometimes be done through contracts"(!?!) but also can be done with IP
The moderator just used the c-word ("counterfeit") on this USPTO design patent panel.
I am staying on brand in the Q&A:
Panelist just described IP strategy, from a business perspective as follows: "You're looking more just to block your competitors."
Panelist just described IP strategy, from a business perspective, as "You're looking more just to block your competitors."
A panelist on this webinar just pointed out that, under current case law, an expired UTILITY patent is a problem for trade dress but an expired DESIGN patent is not.
It's so ridiculous.
#AbolishTradeDress