ProfDezine

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

@FOSSpatents “Apple obviously isn't going to extend a design patent license to Samsung.” Yup. Why?Same reason why TOTAL profit remedy is needed.#appsung

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

@SteveForbesCEO Correction. Importantly, SCOTUS held that relevant AOM could be (a) ENTIRE PHONE or (b) something less. Unanimous jury choose (a). #appsung

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

SCOTUS contemplated this potential outcome holding that relevant AOM could be WHOLE PHONE or something less. Jury choose former. #appsung

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

#appsung "[r]uling Apple can’t claim the total profit of Samsung phones for infringing on design patents" Wrong! https://t.co/erCX1bE6ZJ

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

Step 1: find "relevant" AOM, e.g. shell OR end product. Step 2: if R-AOM is end product, award ALL profits inclding innards. #appsung

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

Yes @FOSSpatents Step 1: find "relevant" AOM, e.g. shell OR end product. Step 2: if RAOM is end product, award ALL profits inclding innards.

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

Sure sounds like @FOSSpatents thinks apportionment is alive when AOM is entire product. Wrong. See @ThomasCotter1 https://t.co/1xvIq32907

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

@FOSSpatents that's true but irrelevant. #SCOTUS held AOM COULD be entire smartphone. If shown, ALL profits from ENTIRE smartphone awarded.

[Design_Patent @design_patent]

Yes @VisualParlance. Once AOM is determined, there is NO apportionment for "innards" @FOSSpatents @ProfDezine https://t.co/hL3GpjWZu3

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

#fedcir could easily reaffirm by slightly tweaking previous opinion. FedCir never said it had to be sold separately https://t.co/Yv6MjVXCVb

[Design_Patent @design_patent]

J.Kennedy #appsung: “market studies to see how the design affected the consumer is APPORTIONMENT, which runs headlong into the statute"

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

This part of the opinion is clear. J.Sotomayor even writes "total profit" is "ALL profit from prohibited conduct" https://t.co/1q9jH1nPiw

[Design_Patent @design_patent]

J.Kennedy #appsung: “market studies to see how the design affected the consumer is APPORTIONMENT, which runs headlong into the statute"

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

Example of erroneous over-reporting. Reality #SCOTUS didn't change much Listen to @ThomasCotter1 Jan 12 on @IPO Chat https://t.co/nHlWLo3Hrx

[EFF @EFF]

Update on the "rounded corners" patent case: Supreme Court curbs excessive damages in design patent lawsuits. https://t.co/Bpl2o1KNP1

[Darius C. Gambino @PhillyIP]

Panasonic Corp. v. MobileDemand (DNJ 2016) - Panasonic sues for infringement of #designpatent for TOUGHBOOK tablet

[George Raynal @GeorgeRaynal]

Top 7 #designpatent district courts in 2015: CDCA-50 SDNY-21 SDCA-21 WDWA-13 EDTX-12; DMD-11; NDCA-10

[George Raynal @GeorgeRaynal]

Reviewing 279 #designpatent complaints filed in 2015 representing 261 controversies, I found NO non-practicing entities or PAEs

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

For 289, infringer gives up its profits to patentee. For 284, infringer pays patentee for patentee's lost profits. Fundamental difference.

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

Yes, like when court orders restitution it orders the dfndt to give up his/her gains to the claimant. #designpatents https://t.co/FcfD6aHaT2

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

For 289, infringer gives up its profits to patentee. For 284, infringer pays patentee for patentee's lost profits. Fundamental difference.

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

#tradedress #trademark. notice how the alleged tradedress was depicted in registration. #kitkat https://t.co/J029wPdciv

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

General Court orders re-examination of Kit Kat 4 fingers trade mark https://t.co/mj5DBufYV8 #tradedress

[Christopher Carani @ChrisCarani]

Two #289 cases headed to #FedCir - Nordock and Apple; Note: Duo of O'Malley and Chen will be on BOTH 3-judge panels #designpatents #appsung

[Flaster Greenberg PC @Flaster]

The #appsung litigation is a friendly reminder to include design #patents as part of a patent portfolio. Here's why: https://t.co/g63zHgXx4P