Today, the Court granted certiorari in the Apple v. Samsung case on the question of design patentAs distinct from a utility patent. A design patent protects only the ornamental design or appearance of an article of manufacture, but not its structural or functional features. An ‘article of manufacture’ is a broad term which may extend even to computer icons. Like utility patents, design patents must be nonobvious but this standard is harder to apply to designs. damages. We filed an amicus brief in support of Samsung’s petition.
The Federal CircuitSee CAFC interpreted design patentAs distinct from a utility patent. A design patent protects only the ornamental design or appearance of an article of manufacture, but not its structural or functional features. An ‘article of manufacture’ is a broad term which may extend even to computer icons. Like utility patents, design patents must be nonobvious but this standard is harder to apply to designs. damages law in a disastrous way. Based on the shape of the outer case of Samsung’s phones, it said that Apple was entitled to all of the profits made on the infringing phones. That’s absurd – there’s so much more to a smartphone other than the shape. The ruling defies common sense.
CCIA argued to the Court that this interpretation overreached in an unconstitutional way, and that the correct interpretation could be found by looking at a related statute, the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.
We’re very glad to see that the Court will address this issue. If the Federal Circuit’s rule stands, we could see a new breed of design patentAs distinct from a utility patent. A design patent protects only the ornamental design or appearance of an article of manufacture, but not its structural or functional features. An ‘article of manufacture’ is a broad term which may extend even to computer icons. Like utility patents, design patents must be nonobvious but this standard is harder to apply to designs. trolls, using design patents to threaten companies with the loss of all of their profits. Although a grant of cert is no guarantee, this is certainly a hopeful sign that the Supreme Court will fix the mess that is design patentAs distinct from a utility patent. A design patent protects only the ornamental design or appearance of an article of manufacture, but not its structural or functional features. An ‘article of manufacture’ is a broad term which may extend even to computer icons. Like utility patents, design patents must be nonobvious but this standard is harder to apply to designs. damages law.
