Through a glass darkly: new Federal Court of Canada decision on infringement and validity of industrial designs
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP | Canada | December 7 2012
The Federal Court of Canada recently released a decision on the infringement and validity of two designs registered under the Industrial Design Act.
Davies Collison Cave | Australia | September 28 2011
On 5 August 2011, the majority of the Full Federal Court (Greenwood and Tracey JJ with Buchanan J dissenting) held that Bodum had acquired a distinctive secondary reputation in the shape and features of its Chambord coffee plunger, and that by failing to properly distinguish its look-alike product from the original, DKSH had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off.
Baker & Hostetler LLP | USA | August 28 2012
"Where the technology involved is easily understandable, expert testimony is not required
Clayton Utz | Australia | September 1 2011
Since the famous decision of the High Court of Australia in Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 in 1982, it has been commonly accepted that a rival trader can copy someone else’s product with impunity (unless the product is protected by statutory intellectual property rights, such as a registered design), provided that the look-alike product is marked with the rival trader’s brand
Gilbert + Tobin | Australia | December 6 2011
Most attempts to rely on actions under the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act or Australian Consumer Law or the tort of passing off to prevent copying of product designs have been unsuccessful, at least where the knockoff products bore differentiating brands from the original.
McDermott Will & Emery | USA | September 28 2012
Addressing evidentiary rulings from a lower court, the U. S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment finding of infringement and validity and remanded the case for a new trial on both issues.
King & Wood Mallesons | Australia | August 8 2011
Mallesons Stephen Jaques has successfully acted for the Bodum Group on a landmark legal battle in the Full Federal Court of Australia regarding a copy of its iconic Bodum Chambord coffee plunger.
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP | United Kingdom | October 15 2012
A recent decision of the United Kingdom High Court between Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics (“Samsung”) illustrates the importance of obtaining industrial design registrations.
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | September 26 2008
This week’s decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess, Inc., v. Swisa, Inc. alters the test and arguably eases the burden for proving infringement of United States design patents by discarding one part of a formerly two-part test.
Freehills Patent Attorneys | Australia | September 26 2013
The recent Multisteps Pty Limited v Source and Sell Pty Limited 2013 FCA 743 decision provides insight as to how the Federal Court of Australia
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP | Australia | September 26 2013
The recent decision of Justice Yates in Multisteps Pty Limited v Source and Sell Pty Limited 2013 FCA 743 (Multisteps)1 provides further insight as
McDermott Will & Emery | USA | June 30 2009
In a decision addressing Gorham’s ordinary-observer test, the sole infringement test pursuant to Egyptian Goddess, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a jury verdict of design patent infringement for further proceedings where the jury was instructed to consider the ordinary observer test and point of novelty.
Banner & Witcoff Ltd | USA | May 21 2015
In a much anticipated opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple v. Samsung on May 18, the design patent law with
Baker & Hostetler LLP | USA | May 14 2012
On May 14, 2012, in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to U.S. Design Patents No. D593,087, No. D618,677, and No. D504,889, and U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, which related to smartphones and tablet computers.
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP | United Kingdom, USA | September 4 2012
Certain of Samsung's mobile phones and tablet devices (including the Galaxy SII and Galaxy Tab) infringed patents (including design patents), including in relation to scrolling and tap to zoom, and the design of the iPhone 3Gs front surface, its round corners and home button, and the home screen design and icon layout
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP | USA | October 6 2008
In a recent en banc ruling, the Federal Circuit adopted the “ordinary observer” test as the sole legal standard for assessing claims of design patent infringement.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP | USA | June 18 2012
Companies concerned that ongoing patent infringement will significantly harm their business often request that a court grant a preliminary injunction to halt that infringement.
Locke Lord LLP | USA | January 8 2013
In August 2012, the jury in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 5:11-CV-01846, returned
Davies Collison Cave | Australia | December 13 2011
In a decision handed down on 13 October 2011, Justice Annabelle Bennett of the Federal Court of Australia granted Apple, Inc (Apple) an interlocutory injunction preventing Samsung Electronics Co Limited (Samsung) from selling in Australia its flagship 10.1 tablet computer, the Australian Galaxy Tab 10.1.
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP | Australia | August 26 2014
On 19 August 2014, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its interlocutory decision in the dispute between Unilever Australia Limited v Revlon
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | USA | April 8 2014
As the ongoing war between Apple and Samsung continues, one of the key questions facing both parties is whether Apple can ultimately obtain permanent
Thompson Hine LLP | USA | May 18 2015
Design patents are one of the better values among the various forms of intellectual property protection available in the United States. Design
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt | USA | January 30 2015
Denials of petitions for inter partes review are deemed not to be appealable to the Circuit. In another dismissal of an inter partes appeal, the
Oblon | USA | April 22 2014
In MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP, No. 2013-1433 (Fed. Cir., Apr. 2, 2014), the Federal Circuit addressed the obviousness of patents