1 / 41

Mobile Devices

Mobile Devices. Elisabeth Fink Boards of Appeal, OHIM Patrice de Cand é General Partner of de Candé-Blanchard Chris Carani McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd. Chair: Darren Smyth Partner in Charge, EIP Elements Practice Group . Designs for Mobile Devices US Perspective. Chris Carani

kimn
Download Presentation

Mobile Devices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mobile Devices

  2. Elisabeth Fink Boards of Appeal, OHIM Patrice de Candé General Partner of de Candé-Blanchard Chris Carani McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd. Chair: Darren Smyth Partner in Charge, EIP Elements Practice Group

  3. Designs for Mobile Devices US Perspective Chris Carani McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd.

  4. Outline of Today’s Discussion • Dotted Lines • Design Corpus (i.e. Prior Art) and Infringement • Nature of the Product • Features Dictated by Technical Function

  5. “Solid lines” are part of claim design.” “Dotted lines” are NOT part of claimed design.” General Rule (U.S.)

  6. Mount is not part of claimed design Microsoft Webcam, US Patent D647,937 Dotted Lines

  7. Microsoft Webcam, US Patent D647,937 Dotted Lines

  8. US D647,946 “SUPPORT FOR ELECTRONIC CAMERA” US D647,933 “ELECTRONIC CAMERA” Multiple Applications

  9. D548,744 (entire device) D562,847 (no screen, click wheel) D573,223 (screen, no click wheel) Dotted Lines and Continuation Practice

  10. Filing 2/13/09 Issuance D650,355 Filing 3/22/07 Issuance D573,606 Etc. Filing 05/08/07 Issuance D548,744 Issuance D656,159 Filing 08/10/11 Filing 8/24/05 Abandoned Dotted Lines and Continuation Practice

  11. Apple D‘087 Embodiment 1 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 2 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 3 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 4 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 5 Apple D‘087 Embodiment 6 Apple’s US D593,087 has 6 Embodiments

  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Claimed Not present Apple’s ‘087 Design Samsung’s Accused Galaxy 4 S Importance of Dotted Lines

  13. Apple’s US D593,087

  14. Apple’s US D593,087

  15. Disclaimed Apple’s ‘087 Design Samsung’s Accused Galaxy 4 S Importance of Dotted Lines

  16. Set the way back machine…Gorham v White (1871) Design Corpus and Design Patent Infringement

  17. Gorham v. White (1871)

  18. If…“in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designsare 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 v. White (1871)

  19. Eye of an Ordinary Observer: • “Is the overall appearance of the claimed patented design • substantially the same as • the overall appearance of the accused design • in view of the prior art?” Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (2008)

  20. Gorham v. White (1871)

  21. Gorham v. White (1871)

  22. INFRINGEMENT Gorham v. White (1871)

  23. Prior Art Gorham v. White (1871)

  24. Prior Art NON-INFRINGEMENT Gorham v. White (1871)

  25. US D513,395 Title: Automobile Body Accused Product Automobile Nature of the Product

  26. US D513,395 Title: Automobile Body Accused Product Go-Cart or UTV Nature of the Product

  27. US D513,395 Title: Automobile Body Accused Product Child’s Toy Nature of the Product

  28. US D593,087 Title: Smartphone Accused Product Child’s Toy Nature of the Product

  29. Concept 1 Validity – Overall Appearance of Claimed Design. Concept 2 Scope of Protection – Appearance of Individual Features. Two Distinct Functionality Concepts: (1) Validity and (2) Scope of Protection

  30. Patented Design 1 Patented Design 2 Patented Design 3 Validity Question: Is Appearance of Overall Claimed Design Dictated by Function? Concept 1: Functionality - Validity

  31. Patented Design Accused Design Scope of Protection Question: Is Appearance of Claimed Design Feature Dictated by Function? Concept 2: Functionality – Scope of Protection

  32. Prior Art ‘167 Patented Design Accused Design Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc. (2010) 32

  33. hammer-head 2 crow-bar 4 handle 1 jaw 3 Claim Construction – as a Matter of Law “Richardson's multi-function tool comprises several elements that are driven purely by utility. As the district court noted, elements such as the handle, the hammer-head, the jaw, and the crowbar are dictated by their functional purpose.” 33

  34. Claim Construction “Discount,”“Ignore,”“Factor out,” these features. 34

  35. hammer-head 1 3 crow-bar handle 4 jaw 2 35

  36. hammer-head 1 crow-bar 3 handle 4 jaw 2 36

  37. hammer-head 1 crow-bar 4 handle 3 jaw 2 37

  38. hammer-head 1 crow-bar 3 handle 4 jaw 2 38

  39. Claim Construction = Claim Destruction

  40. Scope of Protection: Are there any features “dictated by function”? Functionality – Scope of Protection

  41. Questions

More Related