NotaBene

Keeping a watchful eye on the design scene in Silicon Valley.

[FashionLawInstitute @FashionLawInst]

Why so Seirus? Professor Scafidi on Federal Circuit's surprising new Columbia Sportswear design patent ruling re logos and infringement @BLaw https://t.co/I23wL9DNLa https://t.co/zBHuUIKnuM

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

@patent_maven This was such a bad decision. but sure good for infringers....take patented design, put your own logo on it, and your off ...Easy Peasy...#FedCir

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

@ProfDezine @FOSSpatents All good points. My main point is that innards are still in play IF RAOM is end product, which SCOTUS contemplates.

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

@FOSSpatents #SCOTUS clearly states that relevant AOM can be ENTIRE END PRODUCT. This belies your argument that innards are apportioned out.

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

Wrong! "No longer can a patentee get all of the profits from the sales of a product infringing a design patent." https://t.co/FQgoxtjhl3

[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]

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

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

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

[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

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

Yes,it is one of the concise holdings of SCOTUS opinion in #appsung. Total = ALL. Thankfully apportionment is dead. https://t.co/C5Q9kkqRXL

[Design_Patent @design_patent]

In #appsung, Court states “‘Total’, of course, means ALL.” No apportioning out innards, brand value, materials used, functionality, etc.

[Manuel Sosa @msosa_innovate]

Excited 2 share our new research based on designPatents analysis @Cambridge_Uni @CambridgeJBS

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

See blog posts at @theordinaryobserver @FOSSpatents, also tomorrow's @IDSA free webinar on #designpatents damages https://t.co/5dtdEGIxRf

[Design_Patent @design_patent]

Agree; that principal is bedrock. But tougher issue is when design patent dots out portion of product. See #SCOTUS https://t.co/3vDIamvGhg

[NotaBene @VisualParlance]

When design of entire product is claimed, total profits from sale of entire product are disgorged. #designpatents https://t.co/bPInSjgAaS

[ProfDezine @ProfDezine]

Design patentee gets ttl profit of entire phone when entire phone is claimed; question under #appsung only arises when pat is partial design