nostr:npub1grzww4x4hdt24n0y5703h7yg9u8c8ctatkrs6fvhshwqfac7w8vq6q2pmw nostr:npub16pcnkuannwmpwmu9phqvyg93uavdgdmzgy8cfrzvk7swr98udfus6s8j5n I think this kind of counterfeit rhetoric is particularly problematic in Schedule A cases, because the alleged basis for ex parte asset seizures applies to actual counterfeiting but not to utility patent infringement:
nostr:npub16pcnkuannwmpwmu9phqvyg93uavdgdmzgy8cfrzvk7swr98udfus6s8j5n "The Supreme People’s Court rejected them due to translation discrepancies that Plaintiff’s counsel concedes were in those documents." !!
There's also a pending Federal Circuit case on these issues that was argued in January (no decision yet):
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/01/burstein-patents-drawing.html
For my own pre-CurviSil thoughts:
There are also some really interesting open questions about the proper scope of design patent prior art (for § 102 and § 103) in the wake of #CurviSil. But this brief doesn't acknowledge or discuss those.
Okay, on to the professors+ brief.
Similar group of profs from the first round, now joined by some right-to-repair groups:
They continue to lean heavily on their "design patent exceptionalism" argument, with some attempt to rebut what I wrote here:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/07/design-patent-exceptionalism.html
The professors+ also argue again that KSR implicitly overruled In re Clay. I'm...not convinced.
They're citing parts of KSR that involved not only a utility patent claim but a combination patent. Design patent claims are REALLY different.
Okay, on to the professors+ brief.
Similar group of profs from the first round, now joined by some right-to-repair groups:
They continue to lean heavily on their "design patent exceptionalism" argument, with some attempt to rebut what I wrote here:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/07/design-patent-exceptionalism.html
Law360 on the #BlueSphere decision, including a recap of their judge-shopping shenanigans: https://www.law360.com/articles/1715330?e_id=5d700c06-51fd-4232-93e5-3482b7ad9d56&
#Trademarks #ScheduleA
"Over and over again, Wright seems to think that his clearly admitted to pattern of behavior to seek out his female students and start sexual relationships with them was solely the result of consensual adults agreeing to have a relationship, with no recognition of the power indifference, and the influence both of them knew he had over their future careers.
- nostr:npub1lslwn6kpyfkj3xp3zk6jd2epur5gjdeawklnsh9nd498xy50ezdqfz9c2x
First day of Civ Pro. Heck yes, I'm wearing my Barbie shirt: https://www.raygunsite.com/products/my-job-is-teach
nostr:npub1g47fvavqx50gv3e3un9ast904qp7lwwe7vcjwlmnjqnewvud862qqkcxy0 Well, it's a design patent so the concept/product doesn't have to be new, just the claimed visual appearance
nostr:npub1nxxg5vlw8utexkga2fshg5n3t749srlc3u7am34gqfuetw27l9hs6mwsjl You might be interested in the (extensive) descriptions of the drawings here
D468,975 - issued in 2003 for a design for a "for a hand operated citrus fruit squeezer." #DesignPatents
nostr:npub1a48z5ak88sr9e39qppahrs7ysaw7y3408wnqt5dwnwwnrwf90exqwhwfsc It's a design for a pretzel, actually :)
And it's hard for DP examiners to reject anything: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3329899
nostr:npub1zhmyvn4lfahrem827l84ujcwc0hf9ykgjxpxmcfgnpqp9j270ngqkq2dea Yeah, my head knows that but
Just got to chat with a student who's excited about design patents. I just love this part of my job so much.
Okay, so here's the #LKQvGM roundup:
- There are six amicus briefs in support of LKQ
- And four in support of neither party, including one filed by the U.S. Government (including the views of the USPTO)
https://fedcircuitblog.com/en-banc/cases/lkq-corporation-v-gm-global-technology-operations-llc/
#DesignPatents #PatentFedi
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 #LawFedi