Professor David Taylor has posted the #LKQvGM briefs here:
https://fedcircuitblog.com/en-banc/cases/lkq-corporation-v-gm-global-technology-operations-llc/
#DesignPatents #PatentFedi
And for those who don't, Professor Taylor also just posted them on his blog: https://fedcircuitblog.com/en-banc/cases/lkq-corporation-v-gm-global-technology-operations-llc/
Great points here from nostr:npub1hcc5kv2zwcnlwdthxru8cf8avcetpet86n9ymtgpm897dvml6wwsgk4xws.
Okay, friends: What do you love about the fedi right now? What do you want to see more of?
I also finished reading "The Twyford Code" which was engaging and original.
I ended up doing emotional support TV on Friday (all of the musical episodes of "The Magicians") and "Moxie" yesterday. Pleased with my choices.
nostr:npub1c46j8uashud0h5vfsguf85dzypsvlaxsqt3qnfkruuyw53qm2tlqrhuxs3 Good for you. Sorry you're the only one.
nostr:npub1e2k9eewff8savfjta0nqr8e9ygwf5usaz6vcq7vukk3urqud3h4qcv0e0p Absolutely on a need-to-do basis over here
If you can stomach it, this complaint is a stunning example of how far we haven't come.
Wright tries to DARVO these defendants but only makes himself look worse:
nostr:npub1wmlsqepkjtnd4g9nu3mv3gjnhq9wxvzdyl2pu4nhk3e857fnxlaqag37pd nostr:npub14c20n2mm6gux4chsmk26kmwgy28w77h8yqj6dqhnu0gypwjmlzvsf22aqx Yeah. nostr:npub1w6weqqn083ckma86ftvlq3hjjqp4usj58zere3luxegyp7vex5ws29e94h does a great job of explaining why that makes especially no sense in this case here: https://abovethelaw.com/2023/08/ex-law-professor-sues-former-students-for-108m-over-sexual-harassment-allegations/
nostr:npub14c20n2mm6gux4chsmk26kmwgy28w77h8yqj6dqhnu0gypwjmlzvsf22aqx My first thought, exactly.
nostr:npub1t22dh2g5sjmnart6pewy3xkzyn4m7ysea9aqz0wx9vydn4c2lmkszuyhlj No, I hadn't seen that. Will check it out, thanks!
Anyway, here's IPO's proposal on nomenclature. It's less clunky that AIPLA's, at least:
IPO also chimed in: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-C-2023-0010-0008
Like AIPLA, they don't want practitioners to be called "design patent attorneys" or "design patent agents."
Note again that: The current registration system doesn't actually ensure design competence. So if the new system involves a design-specific test, those practitioners WOULD have proved a higher degree of specialized knowledge.
Again, that's not to say that some current practitioners aren't design patent experts. But they didn't prove that by passing the current exam.
IPO also chimed in: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-C-2023-0010-0008
Like AIPLA, they don't want practitioners to be called "design patent attorneys" or "design patent agents."
Anyway, going back to the labeling point.
The question of how registered patent practitioners should be able to represent themselves to the public is an important one.
In fact, I raised it in my own comments in the first round:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-P-2022-0027-0033
AIPLA also asks the Office to require design patent practitioners be labeled as second-class citizens:
Huang v. #ScheduleA - New design patent case with #CounterfeitRhetoric: https://www.scribd.com/document/666326200/Huang-v-Schedule-A-Complaint
Particularly notable here: The asserted patent is extraordinarily narrow: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD931187S1/en?oq=D931%2c187
So the chances of it plausibly being infringed by multiple people (let alone hundreds, as is commonly alleged in these kinds of cases) seems....unlikely.
#DesignPatents
Does anyone else remember that show from the late '80s where the main character was half-alien and had the ability to freeze time?
That was a cool power. I would like to have that power right now.
This piece on Kenneth Chesebro is generally good and interesting but I really could have done without all the Jeffrey Toobin quotes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/19/kenneth-chesebro-trump-georgia-indictment-fake-electors