By David NguyenSamsung filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on June 1, 2016 in response to the Court's grant of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed in December 2015. The petition sought a ruling on “where a patented design is applied only to a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to profits attributable to that component?”
| June 29, 2016
This case is follow-on to Apple v. Samsung in 2012, which, generally speaking, included the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's denial of Samsung’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, new trial or remittitur (Pet. App. 114a-153a), followed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Pet. App. 1a-36a) denial of a rehearing en banc.
By Colin B. Harris and David NguyenBayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited, and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC (collectively “BMW Group”) filed suit against TurboSquid, Inc. (“TurboSquid”) on May 3, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of BMW Group’s design patents, trademarks, and trade dress.
| May 9, 2016
BMW Group is seeking a permanent injunction for infringement, destruction of products, advertisements, and packaging in TurboSquid’s possession or control bearing BMW Group’s trademarks or trade dress, and recovery of TurboSquid’s profits from the alleged infringement, treble actual damages, and reasonable expenses.
The design patents detailed in the suit include six BMW Group design patents pertaining to BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce branded vehicles produced by BMW Group. These are design patents D473,165, D639,209, D664,896, D714,190, D714,687, and D724,495. The ’165 patent is titled “Surface configuration of a vehicle, toy and miscellaneous consumer products incorporating the design,” and the other patents are each titled “Vehicle, toy, and/or replicas thereof.” For illustrative purposes, images from the design patents are shown below.
By Colin B. HarrisThe USPTO's Design Day 2016, held April 19th, started off with a welcoming address from the Commissioner for Patents, Andrew Hirshfeld. Commissioner Hirshfeld noted the increasing importance of design patents, as U.S. design patent application filings have increased from 11,000 in 1987 to 37,000 in 2015. Commissioner Hirschfeld encouraged everyone to submit comments and examples for the application of the Written Description Requirement in Design Applications, which was published on April 15, 2016 (reported here). Commissioner Hirshfeld also announced that 15 design examiners will be working out of the USPTO's San Jose satellite office.
| April 26, 2016
By David. M. Longo, Ph.D.On April 15, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a Request for Comments on the Application of the Written Description Requirement to Specific Situations in Design Applications (“Request”). See 81 F.R. 73, pp. 22233-22236. In particular, the USPTO is seeking the public’s help in identifying examples “to illustrate [its] proposed approach or any suggested approach for applying the written description requirement in design applications.” Id. (emphasis added).
| April 15, 2016
Importantly, this Request also points out that “it became clear that there exists a need to supplement the current provisions in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (‘‘MPEP’’) relating to 35 U.S.C. 112 for design applications.” Id. (Stop the press! Does the Request really say that? Yes, yes it does. Please read on….)
By David NguyenOakley, Inc. (“Oakley”) filed suit against Treasure Franchise Company, LLC (“Defendant”) on March 29, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging infringement a number of Oakley’s design patents for eyewear.
| April 11, 2016
The patents detailed in the suit include seven Oakley design patents issued between December 11, 2007 and October 22, 2013 pertaining to its eyewear designs. These are design patents D692,047, D610,604, D616919, D620,970, D649,579, and D661,339.
In the complaint, Oakley alleges the Defendant infringes by making and selling nearly identical sunglasses, including at several California stores. Examples cited include Defendant’s eyewear model MD3072-RV, JR Optics 7306CW, JR Optics 314L, JR Optics 318L, JR Optics 311L, and JR Optics Dxtreme – DXT5318/CM.