« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 17, 2006
May 10, 2006
Do design patent applications need to comply with §112?
Section 112 requires that patent application specifications contain:
a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most clearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor for carrying out his invention.
Does a typical design patent application do that?
IP blogger Jim Hawes argues they should.
May 08, 2006
"Meet The Bloggers" Tommorrow Night at INTA Toronto
The second annual "Meet the Bloggers" is set for Tuesday night, May 9th, from 9:30 to midnight at the BeerBistro in Toronto. Marty Schwimmer and I invite any and all to attend. We hope to provide an oasis of sanity, a place for conversation, a quiet alternative to the larger, crowded, often deafening parties offered by others. We expect to be joined by fellow blogger Jeremy Phillips of IPKat and possibly others to be named later.
The BeerBistro is located just a few blocks north and east of the INTA headquarters hotel. [Here is a map of the area.] It boasts "one of Toronto's most extensive beer lists and one of the city's finest bars."
Marty Schwimmer, as you all know, is the grandfather of trademark blogging. His Trademark Blog sets the standard that we mere mortal bloggers try to meet. Marty also birthed the Shape Blog, and so one might also call him the mother of shape blogging. And, of course, he is the godfather of my own TTABlog.
Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon founded the must-read IPKat blog in 2003, providing insight and wry commentary regarding "copyright, patent, trademark, and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective.
For a brief peek at the 2005 version of the "Meet the Bloggers" event, surf to this webpage.
Computer Bed
May 05, 2006
U.S. Design Patent D520,142 - Teat
Issued: May 2, 2006
Inventor: Christopher Mallet, Wiltshire (United Kingdom)
May 04, 2006
U.S. Design Patent D519,711 - Ham
Issued: May 2, 2005
Inventor: Claude Dreano, Mauron (France)
Assignee: Armor Inox S.A., Mauron (France)
May 02, 2006
CAFC Affirms Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of Cell Phone Design Patent
In a 3-page, nonprecedential decision, the CAFC today affirmed a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in a design patent case involving the cell phone design shown below. Kyocera Wireless Co. v. President Electronics, Ltd., Appeal No. 06-1131 (May 2, 2006).
The patentee asserted that summary judgment was improper without expert testimony, but the Board disagreed:
The record does not reflect that any of the parties sought to introduce expert evidence, and expert evidence is not always necessary to resolve questions of patent infringement. See, e.g., Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1984). While expert evidence may be necessary in cases involving complex technology, see Centricut, LLC v. Esab Group, Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), this is not such a case, and Mr. Colida [the patentee] does not explain how expert evidence would have been helpful. Because we find no error in the district court’s disposition of this case, we affirm the judgment below.