Lmst
Login

#FederalCircuit

SCU HTLISCUHTLI@mastodon.lawprofs.org
2024-09-26

Join Professor Procaccio-Flowers for an engaging discussion regarding the upcoming Federal Circuit oral arguments happening in Charney Hall on October 9, 2024 🌟

#SCUHTLI #SCULaw #FederalCircuit #OralArguments

Steve Dustcircle 🌹dustcircle@masto.ai
2024-08-14

The #FederalCircuit Clarifies the Meaning of “#PubliclyDisclosed”

natlawreview.com/article/feder

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2024-03-07

ICYMI: The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB conclusion that waffle design was anticipated by a Dunkin Donuts Belgian Waffle Breakfast Sandwich video: mastodon.social/@design_law/11

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2024-02-20

Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction (based on utility patent and trade dress infringement) in a dispute between indoor "adventure parks":

cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-ord

BACKGROUND UATP and Kangaroo are operators of “adventure parks”—indoor play facilities that include trampolines, ziplines, ropes courses, and other attractions. UATP operates at least 160 facilities (known as Urban Air Adventure Parks) throughout the country, primarily through franchisees. Kangaroo operates a single play park in Laredo, Texas that is located in the same building, and uses much of the same equipment, as a previously existing Urban Air Adventure Park franchise.
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2024-02-03

Who's excited for Monday?

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SCHEDULED CASES February 2024 (Revised February 2, 2024) Panel A: Monday, February 5, 2024, 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 201 21-2348 PTO LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC [argued]
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2024-01-08

Please join Suffolk Law on February 6 for our online panel discussion on LKQ v. GM.

Details and (free) registration link here: events.suffolk.edu/event/desig

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-12-14

Save the date: I'm organizing a panel on for noon Eastern on Tuesday, February 6, 2024 (the day after the oral arguments). It will be a free, online event. Hope to see you there!

Rosen coffee table design
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-11-30

LKQ has filed its reply brief in :

storage.courtlistener.com/reca

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 ARGUMENT......................................................................................................... 2 I. KSR Abrogated Rosen and Durling .............................................................. 2 A. Design Patents are Held to the Same Obviousness Standard as Utility Patents .................................................................................... 2 1. Design and Utility Patents are Subject to the Same Constitutional and Statutory Prohibition Against Claiming Obvious Subject Matter ............................................ 2 2. GM’s Arguments for Applying a Special Test to Design Patents are Specious ................................................................ 3
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-11-20

Seirus has filed a petition for rehearing en banc in its case against Columbia:

scribd.com/document/685887103/

This Court should vacate the panel’s decision first because it directly contradicts Supreme Court and Federal Circuit authority that functionality is irrelevant to design patents. Second, the panel decision contradicts this Court’s precedent, including en banc precedent, regarding “comparison prior art” used for context when deciding design patent infringement. That precedent holds that such comparison prior art is not limited to the exact article of manufacture stated in the claim (the anticipation standard). Finally, the panel created an illogical, unworkable test that will be impossible to apply in this case or in future cases.
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-11-02

Ooh, interesting: The government wants to participate in the oral argument in

storage.courtlistener.com/reca

First, this Court’s order granting rehearing en banc specifically invited the views of the United States as an amicus curiae. See ECF No. 86 at 5. In response, the United States filed an amicus brief addressing the issues highlighted in this Court’s en banc order. ECF No. 120. Second, the government, and in particular the USPTO, provides a unique perspective from the examination context that no other party or amici can provide. Thus, the government believes that its views as presented in its brief and at oral argument would be of great assistance to the Court in evaluating and deciding the issues in this case.
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-10-23

Design Patents at the Federal Circuit:

- has been calendared for argument (en banc) on February 5, 2024: courtlistener.com/docket/66745

- In re Samels will be argued on November 6, 2023: courtlistener.com/docket/66812

- Acufloor has filed its opening brief: courtlistener.com/docket/67392

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-09-27

Updated briefing schedule in :

- GM's brief is now due 10/12/2023

- LKQ's reply brief is now due 11/29/2023

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-09-06

Oh, wow, this argument sounds painful.

law360.com/ip/articles/1717741

Here's the oral argument recording, for anyone who's interested:

oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.go

JB Emmonsjbe@esq.social
2023-08-16

Judge Edith Jones of the #5thCircuit U.S. Court of Appeals argued in a letter to the WSJ that the #FederalCircuit circumvented the “usual process” in its probe of Judge Pauline Newman’s mental fitness and her alleged failure to cooperate with investigators.

Newman, 96, has allegedly shown bouts of memory loss, confusion and paranoia. A 3-judge panel is seeking to suspend her for one year or until she submits to a court-ordered examination.

#LawFedi #legal

reuters.com/legal/legalindustr

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-08-04

Breaking news, via Law360: "A Federal Circuit panel investigating claims that 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman is not mentally fit to remain on the bench has recommended that she be suspended from hearing all cases for one year for not cooperating with the probe."

Full story (if you have access): law360.com/ip/articles/1707721

Full report & recommendation (direct from the court): lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-06-30

Federal Circuit grants rehearing en banc in LKQ v. GM:
storage.courtlistener.com/reca

The court orders briefing (and seeks amici views) on various issues, including:

"Does KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), overrule or abrogate In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982), and Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc., 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996)?"

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LKQ CORPORATION, KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellants v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC, Appellee ______________________ 2021-2348 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020- 00534.
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-06-05

Greg Dolin, a law professor and senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, "sees Newman’s challenge as in line with the group’s conservative views on government regulations alongside its challenges to covid mandates, student loan forgiveness and gun bump stock bans."
washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/20

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-05-16

The Federal Circuit has released more orders about Judge Newman:

cafc.uscourts.gov/release-of-p

(h/t @PatentJosh )

Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-05-12

In other news, I have now been cited by both sides in :

scribd.com/document/644795851/

From GM's response to LKQ's petition: "This framework serves as an objective anchor to the analysis—one that even LKQ must concede is “helpful” and “rationally motivated,” LKQ Br. at 14—focusing Case: 22-1253 Document: 80 Page: 18 Filed: 05/10/2023 12 the inquiry on the “overall visual appearance” of the design, and avoiding a pickand- choose cobbling of prior art infected by hindsight. As Judge Lourie observed, “in any obviousness analysis, the question is whether the claimed invention was obvious, but obvious over what. One has to start from somewhere.” Lourie, J. additional views (emphasis in original). This sentiment is echoed by Professor Burstein, whom LKQ cites in its brief: The primary reference requirement performs the valuable function of focusing the nonobviousness inquiry on the design ‘as a whole.’ If a new design is so different from other products of its type that no primary reference can be found, that would generally be strong evidence of nonobviousness. SARAH BURSTEIN, VISUAL INVENTION, 16 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 169, 200 (2012). At the same time, however, the test permits significant flexibility, allowing a fact finder to rely on common sense to find obviousness, even where ornamental features are “entirely absent” from the prior art. MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, 747 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..."
Sarah Fackrelldesign_law
2023-05-12

"It’s not a judicial 'cat fight.' It’s a legal dispute among judges—including other judges on the Federal Circuit—who genuinely disagree about what’s best for the court and the litigants who appear before it."

- @prgugliuzza on

patentlyo.com/patent/2023/05/j

PatentlyO: " Judicial Disability and the “Great Dissenter” May 11, 2023 Guest Post by Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law The judicial disability proceedings instituted against Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman have now spilled into litigation. As Dennis reported yesterday, Judge Newman filed a complaint in D.C. federal district court seeking, among other things, to enjoin and terminate the proceedings."

Client Info

Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst