Page 1
1
U.S. Design Patents: U.S. Design Patents:
The Path To Meaningful and Sustainable The Path To Meaningful and Sustainable
ProtectionProtectionChristopher V. Carani, Esq.
Partner
McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
[email protected]
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected]
November 16, 2011
Santiago, Chile
Page 2
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 2
Focus: U.S. Intellectual Property
1. Patents
2. Trademarks
3. Copyright
Page 3
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 3
Focus: U.S. Intellectual Property
1. Patents
• Utility Patents
• Design Patents**
2. Trademarks (names, logos, etc.)
• Trade Dress
3. Copyright
• Visual Art Copyright
Page 4
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 4
3 Ways to Protect Appearance in U.S.
Trade Dress Copyright
Design Patent**
Page 5
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 5
1)1) Design Patent Design Patent EnforcementEnforcement
2)2) Design Patent Design Patent ProtectionProtection
A) FundamentalsA) Fundamentals
B) Path to Meaningful ProtectionB) Path to Meaningful Protection
TODAYTODAY’’S DISCUSSIONS DISCUSSION
Page 6
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 6
Design Patent Enforcement
Page 7
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 7
Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871)
Gorham’s
Patented DesignWhite’s
Accused Design
Page 8
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 8
Infringement –Ordinary Observer Test
IF…“in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs
are substantially the same, if the resemblance is
such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other,
the first one patented is infringed by the other.”
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871) (emphasis added)
Page 9
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 9
Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871)
Gorham’s
Patented DesignWhite’s
Accused Design
Page 10
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 10
Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871)
Page 11
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 11
Gorham v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871)
Gorham’s
Patented DesignWhite’s
Accused Design
Page 12
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 12
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa,543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)
INFRINGEMENT
Gorham’s
Patented DesignWhite’s
Accused Design
Page 13
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 13
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa,543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)
Gorham’s
Patented DesignWhite’s
Accused DesignPrior Art
Page 14
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 14
Design Patent Prosecution
Page 15
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 15
Utility Patent vs. Design Patents
U.S. Patent No. 7,070,349
The way it WORKS….
Utility Patent
The way it LOOKS….
U.S. Patent No. D559,842
Design Patent
Page 16
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 16
Design Patents Protect
Overall appearance of an article of manufacture
• Shape
Page 17
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 17
Design Patents Protect
Overall appearance of an article of manufacture
• Shape
• Surface ornamentation
Page 18
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 18
Design Patents Protect
Overall appearance of an article of manufacture
• Shape
• Surface ornamentation
• Color
Page 19
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 19
Design Patents: Hard Facts
• Only one claim per design patent
• Duration: 14 years from issuance
• No Maintenance Fees!
• Filing to Issuance 9-12 month avg.
Page 20
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 20
Rocket Docket
• Request to Expedite “Rocket Docket”
• 37 C.F.R. � 1.155
• Seasonal Goods
Page 21
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 21
Design Patent Requirements
To qualify for a design patent, the design must be:
• Novel (� 102) (1-year bar date applies)
• Non-obvious (� 103)
• Ornamental (� 171)
Page 22
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 22
ORNAMENTAL? Yes!
TEST: Are there any design choices? Or is the design
purely dictated by its function?
Page 23
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 23
Ornamental?
Page 24
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 24
Alternative designs
Page 25
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 25
Example of Design Patent Held to be Invalid
NO “DESIGN” – Why? To fit into the key hole, this is the way the blade must lookBest Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563 (Fed.Cir. 1997)
Page 26
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 26
Basic Layout of a Design Patent
• Title
• Claim
• Specification
Page 27
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 27
The figures are the claim.“Property Line”
Page 28
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 28
4 WAYS TO INCREASE SCOPEVALUE OF DESIGN PATENTS
1. Broken Lines (“Dotted Lines”)
2. Indeterminate Break Lines
3. Multiple Embodiments
4. Multiple Applications
Page 29
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 29
1. Broken Lines (“Dotted Lines”)
Page 30
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 30
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Dotted Line Practice
Disclaim
design of
legs
Page 31
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 31
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Dotted Line Practice
DISCLAIM
HARDWARE
Microsoft Webcam, US Patent D647,937
Page 32
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 32
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Dotted Line Practice
D601335
“Dotted lines form no part of the
claimed design.”
Page 33
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 33
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Dotted Line Practice
Low-cut Version Mid-cut Version
Generic Design Patent Claim
Page 34
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 34
2. INDETERMINATE
BREAK LINES
Page 35
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 35
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Indeterminate Length
Relative Width of Structure
Page 36
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 36
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Indeterminate Length
Page 37
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 37
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Indeterminate Length
Page 38
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 38
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Indeterminate Radial Expansion
Page 39
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 39
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Indeterminate Radial Expansion
Page 40
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 40
3. MULTIPLE EMBODIMENTS
Page 41
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 41
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Multiple Embodiments
One Application, One Claim – Two Embodiments
Page 42
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 42
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Multiple Embodiments
First Embodiment Second Embodiment
One Application, One Claim – But Two Embodiments
Page 43
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 43
Adding Scope, Adding Value –Multiple Embodiments
First
Embodiment
Second
Embodiment
Third
Embodiment
Fourth
Embodiment
One Application – Four Embodiments
Page 44
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 44
4. MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS
Page 45
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 45
Multiple Applications –Maximize Coverage
Des. 287,301
“SHOE UPPER”
Des. 284,420
“SHOE SOLE”
Page 46
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 46
Multiple Applications –Maximize Coverage
Des. D647,933
“ELECTRONIC
CAMERA”
Des. D647,946
“SUPPORT FOR
ELECTRONIC
CAMERA”
Page 47
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 47
Multiple Applications –Maximize Coverage
D548,744
(entire device)
D562,348
(screen, no click wheel)
D562,847
(no screen, click wheel)
Page 48
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 48
Combination of all -Synergistic effect
(1) Dotted Lines, (2) Indeterminate break
lines, (3) multiple embodiments(4) Multiple application
Page 49
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 49
Battle Royale…
Page 50
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 50
US D593,087 (6 embodiments)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics11-cv-01846 (C.D. Cal)
Apple D‘087
Embodiment 5
Apple D‘087
Embodiment 6
Apple D‘087
Embodiment 4
Apple D‘087
Embodiment 3
Apple D‘087
Embodiment 2
Apple D‘087
Embodiment 1
Embodiment Speaker Screen Border Home Button
1 Unclaimed Unclaimed Claimed
2 Unclaimed Claimed Unclaimed
3 Claimed Unclaimed Unclaimed
4 Unclaimed Claimed Claimed
5 Claimed Unclaimed Claimed
6 Claimed Claimed Unclaimed
Page 51
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 51
US D593,087 Samsung Galaxy S 4G
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics11-cv-01846 (C.D. Cal)
Page 52
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 52
35 U.S.C. �112“Indefiniteness”
Page 53
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 53
35 U.S.C. 112“Indefiniteness”
Page 54
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 54
35 U.S.C. 112“Indefiniteness”
Convex?
Concave?
Flat?
Page 55
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 55
35 U.S.C. 112“Indefiniteness”
Page 56
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 56
35 U.S.C. 112“Indefiniteness”
Page 57
© 2011 Christopher V. [email protected] 57
THANK YOU!
Christopher Carani, Esq. is a shareholder at the intellectual property law firm of McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. based in Chicago, Illinois. The focus of Mr. Carani's practice centers on Design Law, which covers design patents, trade dress, and 3D copyrights. He is a nationally recognized in this field, having litigated numerous disputes, lectured and published extensively, counseled clients on a wide range of strategic design protection and enforcement issues, and served as consultant and expert witness in design law cases. He currently chairs the Industrial Design Committee of the American Bar Association (“ABA”). In Egyptian Goddess, he authored amicus briefs on behalf of the AIPLA at both the petition and en banc stages. He also authored amicus briefs for AIPLA in Richardson v. Stanley and Lawman v. Winner.
Christopher V. Carani, Esq.ShareholderMcANDREWS HELD & MALLOY LTD.500 West Madison St., Suite 3400Chicago Illinois 60661(Tel) 312 775 8000(Fax) 312 775 [email protected]